So how trustworthy can Jake collins armor page, bob armor page and tank net be? all three citing the 120mm M-829A3 between 930mm 960mm and 970mm respectively at 1km and 2-2km?
edit: Don’t take it wrong, it would be absolutely unbalanced and busted if the actual values were added
Not really the point.
The point is that without classified documents nobody really knows. Therefore Gaijin can do whatever they want. When they claim “Historical documents” They are blowing sunshine.
It’s basically a concept of moving the goalposts when talking about historical documentation
Welp… So much for the spall absorbing trunnion, it’s not even there.
In all seriousness, yeah this is just a massive nerf. They couldn’t even bother fixing the hydraulic pump placement
It really does seem like reports classed as “suggestions” are actively used to assist with vehicle balancing.
Just look at what they’ve done to the F-14s.
The report is barely two months old, and could have been worked around for the -14B (at least) by replacing in kind the basic AIM-54C with the “-54C(ECCM/Sealed)”
And yet the following report is nearing 2 years old at this point, and yet somehow still remains to be implemented. Which of course lead to the F-14B missing out on a buff that could have improved the radar’s performance.
[DEV]The F-14B should be impacted by this change to IRST/EOTS
Presently the F-14B doesn’t use its EO tracker as part of its STT automation. As such isn’t subject to the fix requested.
The fix for the aircraft mentioned in this report is only to resolve the automation rapidly changing between radar and IR/EO while in STT. It isn’t to grant full launch capabilities in those modes and doesn’t allow for it when manually switching to IR/EO modes.
It’s also partially why I try to avoid reporting direct Nerfs where possible, since often Gaijin doesn’t take nuance into account when implementing them.
how is the abrams turret basket model
u got any protection analysis show, also does it spall or catch it(im not on my pc)
I’m not really sure. I don’t think it’s absorbing shrapnel and if it is, it’s being outweighed by the amount of shrapnel being generated.
The thing is that side shot center of mass is usually a one shot kill even before the the turret basket was added. In my opinion, all this does is increase the area in which you have the possibility of getting a one shot kill.
I can’t give a definitive answer, I should’ve done tests pre-patch
In Leopard models the turret gets now jammed with virtually every hit. This turret basket always gets hit and also doesn’t protect, spall goes through.
Still no word on the bumped bug reports either
Very low confidence. Especially if it claims such a high penetration figure without any kind of basis. Instead I recommend the following article.
idk how much id trust that source, it literally says there isnt a cutaway view of m829a3 while one of the first images claims to be one.
while also ignoring how the cutaway of m829a3 clearly shows a significant length increase over m829a2
He says there isn´t a cutaway showing where the penetrator ends and where the breakaway tip begins. From the most important source -the patent- what the author deducts is that said tip is 100-120mm long, which is just enough for the penetrator to be just as long as previous M829A2 (but thicker).
But you are probably missing the most important point: it penetrates between 0.5-10 percent more into steel than if it hadn´t the penetrator and up to 20 percent vs targets equipped with heavy ERA (K5 and similar).
In other words, if by formula we get that M829A3 penetrates 710mm at 60º, then you have to increase it by 10 percent, that is 780mm vs tanks that don´t have ERA and up to 850mm against those which do.
Well for Tiger, destroying the floor IS destroying the traverse cause that’s where the traverse mechanism is transferred to the turret.
Ah yes my favourite kind of news. The completely unsourced kind!
Sorry, but why are this guys post not already flagged and why is it not already banned? Dude has violated half communities guidelines (political discussion, propaganda + off topic)… I’ve seen people post been flagged for way less…
my post have been removed for less lol
Vatniks get a free pass around here.
Was reading a few documents (excerpt mentioned here) and came across this;
“In essence, I asked the Army to apply to the Bradley the same external fuel storage, spall liner, and ammunition compartment concepts already in practice in the Israeli M-113’s, Merkavas, and the Army’s own M-1 and M-1A1 tanks. In February 1986, the Army agreed to this in principle. However, it took over a year to get a prototype vehicle prepared. Only 6 weeks were required to actually prepare the vehicle. The rest of the year was spent in bureaucratic study, review, and foot-dragging.”
Do we know which variant / program / prototype this could correspond to? It’s not the baseline A1 as they begin deliveries in August of '85.
