Unlike most opponents the 279 is forced to face at 9.7, it does not have Thermals, laser rangefinder or apfsds. The speed also starts to be lacking against wheeled vehicles like Rooikat and Type 16 fps
You realize the Maus is more available than the Obj 279, right? You can still get the Maus. The 279 was a one time event vehicle.
THB, the Leopard 1 like mobility of the Object is hard to grasp. For such a heavy armor the combination of protection and mobility is impossible imho. I just can’t imagine that this thing accelerates and turns that fast. Also the reload…
I am not so sure about this Classification of an Exclusive Vehicle. The 279 is tradeable and thus still aviable. One Time would in my opinion mean a Vehicle that only shows up once and is then wasted, because it did not get a Coupon. Examples are the E.B.R 1954, Ka-Chi, T55E1
Its not available to everyone. The Maus is.
Okay, the Maus is more obtainable, so fair enough.
Ah yes, the heavy tank isn’t good because it lacks the mobility of a rooikat… Is that your argument? How do ppl type this and take themselves seriosuly?
Almost all 8.7s don’t get thermals.
APHE> APFSDS for similar pen. APHE will almost always have better postpen and the ability to hit a drive wheel around a corner and OHK a vehicle is truly invaluable. APFSDS will have better slope mods, but there isn’t a vehicle up to 9.3 that the obj has to do more than slight aiming.
Except that it has the same balance issue while being added after the removal of the Maus.
The Maus was removed in name only. You can still get it but it’s not available all the time. You can research it every year.
That’s not my point. The removal of the Maus was a big step as it meant that some tanks coulc be removed if too hard to balance or too unhistorical.
But then right after that, they introduce yet another tank impossible to balance. Just why ?
Because of hypocrisy and double standards.
The Maus was removed from the regular tree and it is now an event vehicle, just like the Obj 279.
Obj. 279 mobility is comparable to a T-55A, it’s not even close to a Leopard 1, it only has top speed and good reverse speed. Obj. 279 has avg acceleration and loses alot of speed when turning, more than 99% of the tanks in game. The reload time is correct unless you provide something contradicting already known sources.
But the 279 is balanced, and Maus wasn’t removed. It comes back once a year every year for anyone to pump research into.
That’s not a obj. 279 “only thing”, other tanks like the XM8 and the AGS doesn’t even have the auto loader modelled behind the breach, also maus turret front is 232mm thick, not 220mm… there’s so much misinformation on this topic, mainly the op spreading misinformation about the Obj. 279.
1 Like
Its not that its not modeled, its that it physically could not fit. Much the same way as the 105 Tiger 2 would recoil its cannon into the loader, there isn’t enough space in the turret for that assembly to fit. Not only that, even if the breach was shorter, the image for the autoloader shows it clipping into its own ammo storage from the model we have in game. Thee ready rack had to be significantly smaller. What we have in game just defies physics. From what i have found, the only remaining 279 does not have the autoloader. Not only that, i found cutaway diagrams showing the tank we have in game… with no autoloader.
I’d REALLY like to see the sekret documents showing actual test performance of the tank, not just paper facts. Because i doubt that what we have in game is any more than another Ho-Ri production bullshit.
Maus turret was 220mm for almost 5 years, i keep forgetting it got buffed after it got removed.
I don’t really think that it’s balanced, kinda like the Maus in fact.
It’s completely OP in top tier while cruelly lacking in downtier, same as the Maus.
Provide sources for both these claims, then.
And no, the X-ray of the game is not a source.
Translating the text with an image translator says this:
Installation of AK “Strella” with modified parameters (V0 = 1550 m/s, Pm = 6000 kgf/cm2, L = 7860 mm) in the tank “Object 279”.
Project 1958.
Looking a bit further into it with this new information, this is an apparently proposed modification of the Object 279 using an entirely different 85 mm cannon, which would mean it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand because it’s just not the tank we have in the game, unlike what you’ve claimed.
On top of that, I am 99% certain that you are aware that this is not the same tank as the one in the game, as the only way I found this image is through a reddit post that specifically talked about this, so translating the image wasn’t even necessary. In fact, the links match between the one on the reddit post and the one you’ve posted.
I’m well aware of the many paper projects for the 279 that never existed.
overlay the strela diagram onto the turret of the current 279. Near identical match in dimensions. I think we have the 85mm breach modeled in game. However, the 85mm breach extends so far that the autoloader wouldn’t fit and somehow we are supposed to have an autoader for a two part 130mm shell. So you would need a shorter breach for a longer two part shell.
This is the only image i could find of the 130mm
Breach is much shorter than what we have in game. However, if you overlay this with the autoloader diagram you posted, it still doesn’t match up, with the shell needing to sit deeper in the breach than your diagram shows. Amusingly, this ends up with the projectile for the 130mm resting in the barrel rather in the breach.
As i had stated, the dimensions don’t work. And to cap it of, while there are a million external photos of the 279, there are no internal ones that i know of. Seems strange… unless you consider the many recorded instances of non-functionla prototype vehicles being paraded around to scare the west. My expectation is that the autoloader was never built, the tank was never fully functional, and we are debating paper dreams.
Which has an extremely simple and easy explanation if you actually look at the images I gave you of the real life system. There’s a large cutaway on the right side that allows the loader to actually load the cannon.
My own comment because you seemingly ignored it
Granted, this is not inside the Object 279’s, these images are of the mechanism built on a T-10, with bars to simulate the size of the 279’s turret. Still it shows that it worked and was built.
You said “From what i have found, the only remaining 279 does not have the autoloader”, and when I ask for your sources and proof, instead of actually providing any sources or proof, you say that it maybe could have not been equipped with the autoloader.
In other words, you’re assuming that it is fake from the get go. You don’t actually have proof or sources.
Not to mention that your “west scare tactic” assumption does not work because the Object 279 was not paraded.
Edit: Here’s a book that shows the interior of the Object 279’s turret, specifically showing the loader’s work station and the conveyor for the charges, courtesy of Gentlespie.
1 Like