AAs in general won’t be able to kill helicopters, they’ll only be an annoyance.
1000m/s isn’t super slow, 580m/s found on that Osa is, as even Vikhrs are slightly faster.
Guy in the video kept shooting missiles directly towards the helicopter, which isn’t mandatory and is a skill issue on his part.
Yes, you gonna drop behind cover and won’t be able to guide your missiles towards tanks.
FnF helicopters outright skip this annoyance.
Reddit really isn’t the best site for anything
Have been read into Tankograd. They state that T-64s/80s autoloader carousel can only rotate in one direction (according to the GIF and videos they’re clockwise). While T-72s autoloader was capable to rotate both clockwise and anti-clockwise but due to the rather crude ammunition retrieval system. The reverse function was kept for braking until later auto-loader variant that got revised and digitized.
So to increase ammunition hit probability against Soviet tank. You would need to aim at the right side of the autoloader (or your left-side if you stare at T-64s/80s/72s/90s cannon barrel from the front)
Thank you for the images. Next time an abrams main complains why my T80 didn’t explode, I’ll send him this
I mean it’s possible, but it doesn’t make sense. As the T72 was like a Toyota of the tank world, where as the T80 was like rolls Royce
The turning clock wise only I mean.
Welp that is what Tankograd said.
I think as long as autoloader working and reliable. I don’t think Soviet are in a hurry to upgrade them just to get such minor upgrade.
The biggest improvement In terms of survivability would be reverting to at very least a Brass case in place on the combustible material their current charges (for 125mm D-81 derived systems) use since that’s what tends to cause cookoffs. Especially when Pyrophoric material (e.g. Uranium oxide alloys) is unexpectedly introduced into the fighting compartment.
Since the chemistry and development insensitive propellants seems to be illusive, it would probably be more expedient to do as outlined, though that would require entire revisions to the autoloader & reload cycle since the casing would now need to be expelled along side the stub instead of burning up.
When people see that autoloader has been damaged, they incorrectly assume that the ammo must’ve been hit and blacked out.
I’ll keep analyzing hits like that to see how many of them can be explained by the round simply passing through an empty part of the carousel.
So, can that also be chalked up to up to Gaijin not modeling Pyrophoric (Incendiary) characteristics of DU projectiles? Because I can guarantee that fragments aren’t going to be the only cause of post penetration damage that occurs IRL.
Welp If Russia want to keep produce tank with carousel autoloader. putting more armor on auto-loader and replace combustible case with brass cass can surely help against spall . But it would also made the tank more heavy. And such things still vulnerable against direct hit.
Blow out penel and separate crew compartment are still the most effective and cheapest way to improve crew survivle ability. They step in the right direction with the new design like T-14 .
Put some advance Hard kill APS on them. And maybe commander turret with auto-cannon that could fire proximity shell to deal with drone and such.
I think they understand it fine, they don’t want a level playing field and for their golden goose to be cooked.
So it’s always “no no, you don’t get it. It’s actually hard. And I suffer just as much, maybe even more.”
I feel it would be exceedingly rare if you gave 114L’s to US helis but made them as “inconsistent” as PARS and spikes, and gave the 114k’s as they are and people could choose either(8 L’s, 16 K’s) that anyone would still choose the k’s. I don’t think it would even be a contest. Everyone would take L’s and lessen their workload.
I think they understand just fine, it’s not rocket science. They just want to keep their advantage with as few competitors as possible.
If Gaijin were to introduce a generic smoke functioning against MMW seekers, as some formulations block both IIR and MMW (e.g. M81 smoke) and allowed the -114K to retain IOG accuracy at a distance, or replaced it with the -114R (significant increase to effective Blast radius, over the -114K, making the -114M & -N redundant and finally unify the Hellfire’s target set into a single missile) or AGM-179.
I could certainly see at least a mix of them being taken.
Making them incendiary would help in situations where crew just turns yellow/orange with a whole round or many fragments passing right through their chest area lol.
Unfortunately you’re getting into specifics I don’t understand, and talking about adding capabilities it seems. Which is more than my thought experiment as advocating for.
I’m keeping it simple, add whatever hellfire is FNF and have the option to take either. Make the FNF hellfire the same properties as the others(spike + pars).
I think people would take the FNF so much more often that the group who takes the others would be insignificant. If you’re adding capabilities it’s beyond the scope of my hypothetical and understanding.
That’s the thing the, downside of automatic guidance is that it can more readily be defeated. Where Semi-Automatic / Manual guidance should be harder due to being able to be predictively aimed at a point of intercept, or otherwise retargeted (since Gaijin have drawn a hard line otherwise for post launch re-target / “Man in the loop” guidance mechanisms not being implemented, outside of SALH / SARH, even if they would be functionally identical).
So for example the -114L would be defeated upon smoke being deployed, where SALH guided Hellfires (especially those with Blast warheads) would also require the target to change locations to avoid the blast. since the guidance degradation would mean that the HEAT warheads would likely miss, even a stationary target.
All I’m saying is that they would likely complement each other due to limitations on Seeker detection ranges of MMW seekers being less than the threat range of expected encounterable TELARs, where the added standoff provided by SALH variants proves a decisive advantage. So it’s likely a mix of the two would be carried, especially if the MMW variants had additional quantity limits.
T72b3(?) just took a round through the autoloader brand new and fresh with 22 rounds of ammunition.
Right through outside of autoloader. The round would have sliced the tops of the ammo and spalling detonated it if not.
No spall liner or fuel tank impact. So yeah, it’s not lack of ammo. It just happens.
Did he lose any ammo after being hit ?
Also what round were you using and where did you hit?
Nope, no ammo lost and it was DM33 for Sweden. Top down view I think it was roughly 9-6 on a clock if you put a round in a straight line between those points. I’m not at home at the moment.
Our earlier discussion while looking for the clip of it I recorded. I clicked on the clip that this thread regarded and I realized that it wasn’t 13 rounds, it was 18 rounds. I didn’t count the HE in that number just looked at the darts.
So there was about half a carousel(I think) in the original problematic one and he had 22 this time.
I’m thinking it’s just a gaijinism and will just have to be annoying.
If it haven’t lost any ammo, this means the ammo itself didn’t black out so it’s a spalling issue.
What angle did you shoot it from, was it from the sides ?
Relikt bags offer 200-220mm of KE protection so if it was a funky angle your DM33 could be left with pretty low residual penetration, resulting in poor spalling.
