I uave never heard of the Apache mounting Mavs. I know not too long ago the US Army mounted Spike missiles to the 64 for testing.
Source?
A3 isn’t needed nor wanted.
I don’t want my Abrams to be OP.
Turret ring fix is largely it.
@SpeclistMain1
DU hull is SEP3.
There’s no issue with bulkheads to my knowledge.
I’ve yet to see evidence of turret being too high; in-fact a bug report I made about its gun depression had it about right.
DU armor is there, however you have to prove numbers if you want it increased.
Spall liners are not standard issue if they exist at all.
Meanwhile:
3 Likes
There was a new Frontal Armor package from FY2004/2005 onwards, coincidentally coinciding with the removal of the DU hull limit.
An acknowledged bug report: Community Bug Reporting System
It’s quite obviously too high:
Virtually no APFSDS should be hitting the turret ring, based on the diameter of top tier 120mm or 125mm APFSDS penetrators.
The current numbers are based on non-DU export models that were explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic packages.
They’re literally in all Abrams models, it’s integrated.
1 Like
That one will probably remain debated until the M1E3 is fielded maybe even later.
There’s no Internet source on it. I just know cause I seen it my first Deployment Up and down the tarmac, you would literally see Apache in murder spec, the AGM where good hit cave in placement
Well it’s not going to go anywhere without proof.
The proof is in dead terrorist
And i could say the us dropped a moon on them to kill them the proof is dead terrorists.
You need documentation.
1 Like
There’s your proof like I said Gay-jen has the US all wrong If it wasn’t true me and you wouldn’t have this conversation nor it wouldn’t be a topic that is always brought up
Wikipedia is not a source.
Here is from marvin https://marvingroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AirborneSolutions20170310reduced.pdf
Here is the source the wiki is referenceing.
Which is a source showing it mounted.
Even the AH-1w had mavs it looks like
1 Like
Ill make a bug report when i get home to see if it can get added.
What you’re missing is that the protection analysis is wrong here. If you take that shot, the shell almost certainly will pen, it just won’t hit anything. The only way I was able to get DM43 to ricochet off the side a 72B like that was by firing at 88-89 degrees, which barely mattered since a penetrating shot would break a track at most. Anywhere before that, the shell would penetrate the ERA and detonate it. Similarly, ARAT can only ricochet shells at similar angles.
However, realistically neither ERA set should be able to ricochet anything, with how thin the flyer plates are.
It’s always the american mains
Okay and?
Exactly so why shouldn’t the 30mm era curved tiles act the same way when hit at an angle of 80 degrees on the sep v2?
Same angle, with and without ERA on the sep V1. Does not account for armor ricochet chance at all that’s behind the ERA. Especially if the ERA blows out like they should, the trajectory angle of the ammo should be even more so shifted away from the tank. It’s almost like the armor itself is not modeled with the addition of ERA
1 Like
That appears to be an interesting bug. I want to look more into.
2 Likes
