we got the Mig-25 so i am not so mad
Yeah chief guesstimates isn’t gonna cut it.
For example DM53 suppose to penetrate 1mt according to guesses and some claims but we have no where near that performance in game.
Its much better than 292 no doubt but against modern tanks it will not be as dangerous as you think. Also those tanks sacrifices many things just for firepower (CATTB might be the only exception in there) while modern tanks including new prototypes also offers same firepower capabilities while having much modern systems and protection levels.
Personally I prefer Black Eagle over that tank but in the end its up to Gaijin whether which model they are gonna add.
1mt with the formula?
Wasn’t “ Kaktus “ ERA found to not even be real, and the only thing that was meant to be called that light vehicle ERA that was supposed to go on the BMP-3. Also there was at least one Obj 640 with a dummy cannon. Overall, idk why anyone would want a regular T-80 with a shiny new black camo in game. If all there is is hull changes, and outside visual changes.
The company responsible for the Armata has claimed that they’d need to redesign the vehicle to accommodate 2A83. They’d need to make a new vehicle based on the Armata chassis as the turret, and turret well cannot accommodate such a change.
Now idk if the hull can undergo all that and have enough rounds in the carousel for things to make sense as you can’t realistically as easily reload the carousel in a war zone in an automated taking like that.
It’s certainly not as thick/composite heavy as everyone claimed before especially in early diagrams. It isn’t actually all that much thicker than existing MBT hulls which don’t have the crewless turrets. So idk how it’ll rely on a “not so strong ERA”. There’s a fee things about the Armata that doesn’t make sense to me quite.
Not to mention the thinly protected turret which hasn’t seen as much change as the hull has. I was one of the few who assumed it wasn’t covered in composite as it’s too small of a turret for that to be the case. Even if they wanted, they can’t fit a meaningfully better protected turret as it would cover up the driver hatches. There’s a reason the Abrams has that turret neck it’s because of the drivers hatch needing clearance. But with the Armata the ring is even closer to the hatch meaning you’d need an even higher neck or shorter composite that may not deal with autocannons or drones good enough.
I do remember RedEffect also talking about the placement of the ammo being vertical which may help against top attack? I do understand that theory but that only works directly 90 degs downwards angles. If the drone comes in at an oblique angle hitting the engine deck, or something else it’ll be just like those T-80s that went up from that. I generally think depending on the size of the sections the T-90 layout is better because there’s a chance that roof hits at an angle won’t set off the rounds. But you’d be risking it against non drone/non javelins weapons like the Tow-2B…
So idk how you’d have to design that carousel and which would be more likely a scenario.
i’ll humbly answer to what you said to give you a proper explaination, feel free to ask in case:
dunno where you seen this BS, its very well real, documented and proven effectiveness in obvious tests
unofficial name for “Karkas” ERA kit for BMP3 also pretty much true
half truth, one tank was build yes, but it was the autoloader to be a mockup not the cannon
nothing personal but did you even read the suggestion?
kinda? the project didn’t go forward because it was a useless change scrapped early on, you are true on the fact that it has to be redesigned to accomodate it
4 Likes
That’s what I thought initially. But in a discussion including find any information on said ERA and ultimately had to admit I fell for propaganda. That person in the discussion I had told me it was “made-up” and I just accepted that being the case until I found reliable information saying otherwise. Blame me if you want lol.
But I’d rather you show me what you have. Especially on performance. Is it credible?
That doesn’t make sense. There were 2 prototypes. We know this because there’s one with extra road wheels, one that doesn’t have the extra road wheels. It is true one of them had a dummy cannon at the very least. If you have documentation saying there was only 1 prototype and never a dummy gun, then feel free to link/show that source. I won’t stop ya.
This thread is pretty old with 287 posts. You think I’m going to remember the original first post while maintaining my hobbies, and having a life? That’s an unrealistic standard to hold a person to, especially if they aren’t referencing your post. I could see if I made a claim about said post and didn’t read it, but that wasn’t the case.
That is as much as I feel like responding to that.