The image labeled “1” shows the impact angle of the “Product 305” missile, while the image labeled “2” shows the impact angle of the “CM502KG” missile. It is evident that the angle of “Product 305” (greater than 45°) is significantly larger than that of the “CM502KG” (less than 20°). This results in the following issues:
1.The “CM502KG” often strikes the main armor zone of modern main battle tanks.
2.When engaging lightly armored or even air defense vehicles, it frequently hits non-crew areas.
In other words, the “CM502KG” in the current test server is almost incapable of effectively neutralizing any vehicles within the same battle rating (12.3). For a product developed by the modern Chinese military for foreign trade—which has already been successfully exported—this is clearly neither realistic nor logical.
管理人员说，没有证据证明表明这款导弹的入射角度，但是制作组说的“目测是高爆/半穿甲”的视频又在哪里呢？The management stated that there is no evidence to prove the impact angle of this missile, but where is the video where the development team claimed it was “visually high-explosive/semi-armor-piercing”?
Yes, the warhead of the CM502KG is completely unsuitable for the current guidance logic. The production team should design a separate automatic top attack guidance logic specifically for the CM502KG, instead of the current guidance logic that locks onto the breach.
I have already reported this issue on the problem feedback platform, but Admin #1 dismissed it as a non-issue without any evidence, even though he did not explain why the current low angle is the way it is.
