Also doesn’t the M1128 get the M900 round with 522mm of pen at 10.0?
Its got speed, full thermals and no armor best armor.
T72s get rounds with 450mm pen at 10.0.
So why they can’t give the DS the L26 is beyond me.
Cause Gaijin doesnt like to idea of adding better shells to Nato tanks.
Same goes for M1 Abrams and M1 KVT, both tanks sits at 10.3 and regularly facing uptiers while using M774 only.
Normalle Challenger DS should get L26 and those Abrams should get M833 at least.
2 Likes
Abrams should have M829A4 at this point. If they aren’t going to limit the russian tech tree line (currently using 2023 ammunition on pre-production prototypes) then they shouldn’t limit NATO tanks.
You misunderstood i believe.
İ was talking about 105mm versions Abrams not 120mm versions.
Their are also 105mm options that could be brought in as well.
I understand what smin is saying, and agree with him, however much i desire the EAP. What smin is trying to say is ;
The EAP, unlike the Yak141, and F16AJ, wasnt a dead-end that didnt lead up to any actual aircraft/ service design. The EAP, unlike the 141, led to a service aircraft in the EF2000. The 141 led to a museum piece. All gaijin did in this regard was bring said museum piece to it’s envisioned “Production” form. Hoewever there is no “envisioned” production form for the EAP, as unlike the 141, said form is a reality, and a damn good one at that. The Production EAP is simply the Typhoon. Them adding a functional EAP would be akin to saying the typhoon didnt exist as the EAP was a dead-end in this fake IRL. At least that’s my take on smin’s explanation.
Ta-ta!
2 Likes
Not at all.
The Yak-141 was built, flown and had planned armament that was even mock fitted in some instances.
The R2Y2s as they are in game were never built, flown or tested at all.
İf this is the case can we expect Super Kurnass to Israel tech tree?
Since that Kurnass version was also built,tested and even flew with proper systems.
1 Like
Yak-141 never had and never was planned to have R-60 and four R-27. And based on what it got IRST in game? Dev’s fiction? And you put CMs in air intake.
Here is official brochure from Farnborough (from lecture by “Yak” employee and Yak-141 test pilot Лекция " Як-141" — Video | VK)
1 Like
Yak-141 was planned with 4 heavy AAM pylons.
CMs are not in the air intake.
Yeah man, go on, argue with official informaton. It was planned to carry 4 RVV-AE, not 4 R-27.
2 Likes
The Yak141, Object 279, IS-6 (which actually didn’t work IRL), IS-7… The list is rather large. But here we are.
1 Like
Then will you approve a thread where this topic can be raised whilst still being on topic?
2 Likes
And that’s again pretty much the same as EAP. It was built, flown and had mockup armament mounted. Since when you cared if the weapons worked or not, as mock ups seem to be enough for other vehicles…?
“For the game model, we installed a radar that was planned and existed at the time, as well as the IRST, standard for Soviet fighters.”
So just install the planned equipment and weapons on the EAP aswell.
I don’t understand this random line you want to draw between yak141 and EAP.
Yak141 is perfectly ok, but EAP isn’t even consideration, because it’s “technology demostrator” and not just a failed prototype… Lmao.
Actually now i’m starting to think this will be another event vehicle behind a huge grindwall… That seems to be the place you put NATO prototypes anyway.
2 Likes
EAP, would be really fun, with limited A2A and no A2G power. Such a shame its not even being considered as far as I am aware
1 Like
There are no planned equipment and weapons for the EAP. This seems to be what people are misunderstanding.
The Yak-141 was a prototype aircraft for an intended production aircraft with documented weaponry plans.
The EAP however was a proof of concept demonstrator that was never intended itself to be operationally armed. There was no “production” EAP. It lead to the Eurofighter project and that had its own prototypes.
EAP has:
- No RWR
- No Countermeasures of any kind
- No functioning weaponry
- No possibility or plans that were ever made to fit them functionally.
It simply was to show that new technologies and ideas could be amalgamated into a singular test aircraft ahead of the joint European fighter program.
The manufactures own website makes this clear: https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/bae-eap
There are indeed images of a mock-up ASRAAM and AMRAAM mounted. But these are exactly just that. They are non-functional. The aircraft does not have the systems to use them. Some drawings also show Skyflash and AMRAAM again.
This aircraft was BAe’s proof of concept that the fundamental designs could work. From this, the Eurofighter project was started.
We are very much aware of peoples desires to see a new top jet in the British tree after the Tornado F.3. We have plans for the future to make that a reality, but based on all the current information the EAP is currently not planned by the devs to come in any form.
4 Likes
I hope those are really soon, because Tornado F3 is DOA in its current state and I dont want to be fighting 12/12.3s in 11.3s for another 6 months. I know its unlikely but I do think a partially added DA2 is what is going to be needed ASAP.
5 Likes
so leave the UK air tree to dry until a year or 2 from now when the typhoon can be added?
we need this deperately