It also lends them the freedom to balance…which they are not.
1 Like
It’s not just relating to Armor layout either.
Take these two reports about the FIM-92 as well.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
Which presents evidence that the POST seeker equipt missiles (MIM-72G / FIM-92B and later missiles) should also have access to the Contrast Seeker lock on range extension mechanic(Its functionally identical to missiles that have received the mechanic; it just works in the UV-A band instead of the Visual or IR).
and
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
Which entirely dispels the claims and assumptions put forward about Western Systems by the erroneous MANPADS “article” they published, and details how they actually work and why they are different to the Igla and Redeye(FIM-43) / Strela-2 at a functional level.
4 Likes
their is no problem here
IRL that t90a would have that Shtora-1 activated and you would not be able to fire tows or similar atmgs at it unlike in this game. There is real proof of that you can see the syrian videos.
Shtora only works against the most basic ATGMs which use a simple IR flare to let the FCS know where the missiles is. When the Tow got upgraded to the Tow-2 a xenon flare got added, as well as the regular IR flare pulsing in an encoded way which defeats Shtora. Milan 3 also got a similar upgrade, though I don’t know if it is in game. Simply thinking that Shtora should defeat all atgms is completely wrong, as it is heavily dependant on the missile having an unencoded IR flare, as Shtora has no effect on any other form of guidence.
3 Likes
To the context there are no mention about ATGM in my post you reply to.
But beside that it still depend on ATGM guided system. MCLOS , Radar guided , Laser guided , Beam riding ATGM won’t be affect by Shtora-1
Some have been upgraded to counter solf-kill APS like TOW-2.
M220A2 system also has alternative guided system which they use to guided ATGM via Thermal to be able to operating while in heavy dust, smoke, or fog.
1 Like
Just wanted to hop back in and remind everyone that Gaijin has no credible way to know how modern NATO MBT armor works. They also still use the DeMarre formula which creates bullets nothing like they are in real life. Finally, they can’t know either (in regards to NATO anyway) as those countries practice effective Information Security.
Modern MBT’s in this game only look like they do in real life. In regards to performance it’s just a bunch of flimsy estimates based on old, and incredibly limited information. In short, they are not close to accurate representations of the vehicles.
Gaijin saying anything otherwise is just hubris.
2 Likes
This just in!
An online video game that only has access to publicly available sources, only uses publicly available sources!
More at 11.
3 Likes
They don’t really need to know exactly how things function though, or have access to the actual numbers to produce something that somewhat representative of actual performance.
Take the XM-815 (XM-1) as a baseline for example (since it is known what was used as its threat simulator / surrogate and the composition of the various arrays have been established)
As long as the representative threat at the expected distances does not penetrate things are fine, the actual numbers and mechanics beyond that aren’t as significant, would they be nice to know sure but aren’t entirely necessary.
Also things like the STANAG Level 6 protection requirements and testing procedures are known so otherwise provide a Baseline level of performance, yes the mechanics and technology behind the various arrays in question have obviously improved over time, and there remains the physical signs of changes to armor arrays that are of course unknowable (e.g. the reason as to why the depth of certain arrays changed) but reasonable estimations can be made.
Also things like the fact that crash development of say M829A5 / BM-71 (etc.), or the move to a larger caliber, or massive overhauls to the Array sizes haven’t occurred means that at least it isn’t directly apparent that the evaluation of captured T-90 / M1 variants etc. have not had unexpected results and that the respective sides are at least confidant that whatever mechanical advantages that they have hasn’t degraded sufficiently to cause an immediate response.
Though it would be interesting to see if the T-14 or its follow ons change schema in future based on whatever is learned form the M1s
I don’t doubt that it is, but its not like the MoD / DoD is going to publicly release evaluations of their FME processes, or evaluations of their opponents armor or properly explain how things work, all we can do is see what their public response is to said stimuli.
Though some of the captured M1A1-SAs are on display so a closer look may be possible, though won’t really help with determining much about the later variants of Heavy / Export armor, since they may well have been modified before being sent to Ukraine, though with the obvious use of K-1 / -5 and ARAT tiles Something that uses CE has them concerned (probably the 9M133(M) or a similar system) with the existing array coverage.
I’m pretty sure that they have some stuff from various collections / museums / vendors that isn’t directly available to the public, though is probably not classified.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
Link was broken, just copy/paste this link and remove the space after the first letter, then it should work.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKEVFKcs9I8&list=LL&index=13&t=42m28s
Because there’s no basis for it.
The only reference that I’ve seen on this (and that is publicly available) states it’s relevant to the M1A1 variant.
That doesn’t help the M1A2/SEP/SEP v2 in any way.
1 Like
I think it may be partially an issue that if they were to adjust the array composition to include DU elements (and subsequently adjust performance sufficiently to have a noticeable impact within WT combat ranges) performance may well spike significantly, which leads to question of what do they do to bring them back into line, and thus what nerfs can the platform, sustain without making things worse.
Of which I don’t think there are clear answers, maybe revert the reload back to 10 RPM or revise acess to M829A1 & -A2. let alone what should be done about various premiums, and larger issues that impact W/L rates at 11.7 for the US
This probably won’t happen even if Gaijin revise their stance since they modeled the AIMs as those exported to Australia which we have primary documents relating to their arrays not containing DU, but a revised variant of the EAP array(s).
This is more likely since documents are nebulous, since the later revised DoE license going from listing 5 x M1A1 hulls to as required doesn’t definitively state one way or the other, let alone the potential for the Arrays to be swapped out during maintenance, in the lead up to a deployment, or even on a per unit basis not unlike the F-16C/D with the block -x0 and -x2 determining which engine was installed.
The video isn’t available.
Yeah, really annoying and I don’t know why.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKEVFKcs9I8&list=LL&index=13&t=42m28s
Just copy/paste this link and remove the space after the first letter.
See, here’s the thing. All the hulls are the same. In fact all M1A2’s M1A1 (AIM) and beyond, and most M1A1 HA’s are all built on old M1A1 hulls. All of them. This is established fact. Thus, ANY M1A1 HA and beyond COULD have the DU armor.
People who aren’t part of building Abrams might quibble on this, but anybody who was ever involved in the program know this is absolutely possible.
They give things to vehicles they “could” have all the time.
As to balance issues? I mean, to be fair, the balance at top tier sucks. There are very disparate capabilities depending on which nation you play. I just think giving DU armor to Abrams hulls just is fair. They have far far more weakspot real estate than many other nations.
Also also, though the AIM variant in game is painted in Australian colors, the USA used it too. No reason you couldn’t give them the armor. But, to be fair, if they did it to the HC and the later model M1A2. Or do later model M1A2’s and do a FEP or SA variant with it it would also be fine. It’s just the fact that NONE of them get it.
handful of challengers and M1A1’s killed
Thousands of Russian tanks killed
also. You fanboy so hard for probably the biggest joke of a military.
To professionals, the Russian Military is a joke, and the only thing worse than their ability is their equipment.
As a retired officer I cannot stress enough how pathetic the Russian performance has been. The level of incompetence is, frankly, staggering.
Because as we both know, M1A1’s and Challenger’s have been deployed in equal numbers to T-series tanks. /s
Also moving the goalpost away from what was discussed in the video that I linked.
Plenty of people here have seen me critique all aspects of their military, including their hardware.
I’ve gotten quite a bit of pushback for explaining how the Russian glacis plates are currently overperforming.
I’ve been debunking people that claim the Russian army primarily fields modern tanks by studying the data:
Then there’s the fact that a decent number of my bug reports have led to improvements to NATO tanks.
Etc. etc.
But sure, just because I link a video in which a British member of RUSI explains how it isn’t as simple as ‘‘wEstErn tEnK gUd, rUsSiA tEnk BaD’’ automatically means I’m a Russian fanboy.
Which is funny, because the week prior I was a US fanboy for saying the M1 is better than the 2A4, and the week before that I was a German fanboy for saying the Pz IV’s aren’t as good as people claim them to be. I’ll take that as proof of me being unbiased I suppose.
But if you do have an argument other than an ad hominem, please feel free to share it.
5 Likes
Around 11 Abrams have been confirmed destroyed out of 31 (possibly more as of now, since the 11 was from like 2 weeks ago and I don’t really want to go look to see if more were destroyed) with 2 of those captured.
Challengers are so trash Ukrainians seemingly do not use them anymore after the first loss (or at least they aren’t using them on any attack since we have not seen footage of them).
I get you don’t think Russian vehicles are balanced, but Chinese?
They really aren’t special at top tier, and Gaijin definitively does not favor them over other nations, as most of their vehicles are released with several model errors (in the case of the ZTZ99A the suspension is apparently not in the correctly place, the turret should have better armor coverage and a spall liner).
China is at best equal to Japan, but behind US. USSR, Sweden and Germany
1 Like
