I didn’t “pull” anything just pointing out that it’s a possible explanation. That is why I wrote “if”.
And thinking about it they might have increased the bustle armor to balance out the longer turret another possible “if”.
1 Like
A3 should only penetrate K-5. A4 is what would penetrate Relikt. Relikt was changed specifically so it would have different stats from K-5 and resist A3, the thing it was literally designed to do in real life
‘We don’t even intend on making a more advanced tank so the spare parts supply is secure forever’ as a selling point is so funny
no
A3 was designed well after the US knew the operating principals or relikt
and was designed to over match future threats, as such it absolutely is capable of penetrating relikt
2 Likes
If that was the case then it wouldn’t be implementable without raising the A2C’s BR, since a shell that negates the main armor advantage of tanks at a given tier mounted to a tank that isn’t made of tissue paper generally requires a tank to be at a higher BR than that tier (which is why it doesn’t have A4 currently despite being able to fire it IRL I’m pretty sure)
ok and?
that is the truth, A3 was designed knowing the operating principals or relikt and should penetrate it easily
2 Likes
Completely false.
A4’s sole purpose was the defeat Relikt which is why Us developed it.
Stop spreading misinformation please.
no it wasnt
like at all
that is just an unsubstantiated claim that has spread online
A3 was designed knowing how relikt works
eg. this patent was filed during the development of A3 and it specifically calls out the double flyer plate design of relikt
A4 was likely developed in response to T14 and its armor systems which makes sense given its development timeline
3 Likes
A3 entered the service in 2003 while first Relikt became sort of operational in 2006, in fact until 2012-2016 many Russian tanks wasn’t even deployed with that Era.
Meanwhile A4 entered the service around 2016 to counter Relikt type of ERA.
At least make research before making such claims.
yeah maybe do some research because the development of relikt started in the 90s
and then with dissolution of the soviet union many countries had a chance examine the technology
hence the US having an understanding of the working principals during the development of A3
yes it entered service 7 years after the project for the T14 started
you know, to counter the upcoming T14 tank
further proof of this is through what mechanism would relikt defeat M829A3, because the operating principals of relikt are known and public information, and none of its features would make it effective in that role
4 Likes
Yeah just because “X” tech started to get developed around 90’s doesn’t mean it was fully operational nor has been gathered by other nations.
That a quite stretch and cope, do you have any official documents that can prove this “claim”?
Ah yes Us instantly started to develop counter munition before even Russians could decide which way T-14 project will take. Guess US can see the future now.
Yeah and those informations didn’t became public until recently, seriously this is absurd at this rate.
yes, maybe something like the patent I sent earlier that specifically mentions the design of relikt?
at this point im done arguing with you, no point trying to deal with all the cope
1 Like
M829A3 entered service in 2003, Relikt entered service in 2006.
Very doubtful that M829A3 is very optimized for defeating Relikt. That’s what M829A4 is for.
Application filed by GE during 2003-2008 and only approved to be published around 2016.
Yeah man I’m pretty sure this published information supports your copes so much.
Oh wait its actually the opposite.
2 Likes
your right it was optimized to defeat kaktus ERA, which shares the same overall design as relikt
and again, nobody has explained how adding a second flyer plate would defeat a segmented penetrator such as M829A3; because it doesnt, and we know it doesnt from patents that specifically call out effectiveness against dual flyer plate era (eg. relikt)
1 Like
yes it very much does
it was filed during M829A3 development and confirms effectiveness against dual flyer plate ERA (you know, like relikt)
but only publicly released after M829A4 was fielded, so that it didnt reveal information about the most modern APFSDS round
this really is my last reply on this, because you alls levels of cope is unreal
1 Like
Source? Didn’t know you were an expert on ERA and APFSDS ballistics.
yeah GDLS has been known for doing this kind of stuff before, and they like to do this very often
1 Like
A3 was deployed in 2003 so this proves even more that study was began when A3 was already developed and ready to enter to the service.
Doesnt confirm anything to begin with. In fact it actually makes more sense that GE acquired similiar type of ERA during that time and realized A3 wasn’t enough to deal with it hence why they instantly started to work on A4 development.
Its the opposite, unlike you I don’t look at every single country and think they can foresee the future and can react any possible threat instantly in any situation.
Whatever makes you feel better tho.
1 Like
so much cope you cant even read
7 Likes