Lol.
2A7V uses a round that is not compatible with its main cannon while Abrams still hasn’t even recieved its M829A3, let alone the A4 and you’re claiming Gaijin purposely hold back Russian tanks with ammunition choices?
Lmao even.
3 Likes
Fr? what a joke xD
YES! You must understand that current US and German APFSDS not only are enough to destroy everything they meet, but they also are FAR SUPERIOR to any other nation! So balance-wise they dont even need better, whilest USSR has ones that also not most modern, but also are much weaker.
Yup, current DM53 is incompatible with L55/A1 cannon on 2A7V.
Superior German and Us technology buddy and considering there are more advanced shells that can come to those nations this is nothing.
3BM60 is the most modern round they can get for their 125mm cannons, there are certain prototype rounds out there but none of them accepted into service as far as I know.
Some claim the 3BM59 would be better than 3BM60, still it just shows that for balace reasons every nation lacks something
no shit
Iırc 3BM59 is the depleted uranium version of 60 which provides barely better penetration or opposite in this case.
As for the balance sooner or later they will introduce more powerful shells to top tier, they can only hold for so long.
id rather wish they didnt. The glass cannon balance isnt a favour of mine. Id rather have all MBTs barely pennable frontally with any shot
Excuse me? None of what you said is artificial holdback. The russian tanks got an autoloader buff the second the sources were good. The Carousel is still modeled like hot shit without any complex modules compared to the baskets. ERA is a complete artificial joke. NATO tanks are insanely held back with 2 decade old rounds and armor values based on some 90s trial, because innovation in armor seems to be a marketing lie to Gaijin. Their AGM is the only one that lofts. The plane launched AGM is made up. The additional R77 racks on the SU30SM are made up. The scan speed of the IRBIS compared to the AESAs is made up. There is not a single instance in top tier where russia gets held back by selective realism while everyone else does.
7 Likes
they quite literally have 3y+ reports, and still Gaijin only did it BY THEIR OWN SOURCES
i dont get this one tho. It is modelled, it deletes the reload of a tank completely when hit, and it is hit pretty easy, even through the roof shot.
armor of the MBTs in this game is a joke entirely tbh
Im not a plane guy so i have no idea if thats truth tho.
Probably because the reports were shit. The cyclogram is questionable as is but at least its clear.
It eats spall and doesnt create secondary spall when it should. And there are no electrical or smaller modules modeled on it like on the baskets.
True but one type of armor gets a joke thats entirely positive and the others get cardboard.
Thats alright. The ground stuff with LMURs loft or Iglas that just have to be as good as stingers or the completely joke that is the damage model of the BMPT should be enough to show what i mean.
1 Like
still defeats your point. They spent more than a year to come to the conclusion they need to do research about it as many say its wrong, and they only changed it after they decided to by their own documents
Yes, thats a fair point. Still it is modelled and also makes a tank in a disadvantage, even if its a different one
is there a report about it, or is it random feature? I may be wrong but i saw spall fly throught it
eh, its also not consistent. the TTD has a bigger NERA block in front hull, but it has less power against APFSDS than leopard 2a4. I know the NERA is a wide term so they are balanced differently but hell.
Yeah, i get what you mean
But they came to the conclusion and gave them the best possible times. Other autoloaded tanks like the Japanese ones dont get the best possible.
Probably spall from outside, the carousel itself doesnt create spall when hit, the upper part of the autoloader does for some reason.
Its not consistent but especially in top tier the armor values are all over the place, tanks that are multiple tons heavier without any improvement in armor or 2020s tanks having values from the 90s. Its a mess.
Yes, but then they also made it for the China. And im pretty sure that if it wasnt for china, we wouldnt have it still… Tho its a conspiracy, i want to point out that USSR werent the only ones who got that.
Well, their reports are also aging now, and with that rebalance i think we can wait now that they also will take over the Japs
Sure is. Having add. 5 tonne on Challenger 2 without added protection is a joke.
At least they made so Abramses do have different protection even having same NERA sizes
Neither Leopard nor Abrams are firing incompatible ammo.
If you think DM53 can’t be fired out of Leopard 2A7V, neither can DM73… imagine getting stuck with DM43…
@xLORD_ZAPx
So Gemini AI is producing wrong data and should be avoided.
Thanks for warning us not to trust what Gemini AI states.
The fact that Gemini claims Abrams has spall liners when it doesn’t, and omits Leopard 2s getting them instantly is proof enough.
First of all I only mentioned Leopard, not Abrams.
Current Abram’s can use M829A2 despite the shell itself already out of service in Us Army.
Standart DM53 is can’t be fired from L55/A1, if you don’t know this then it’s your problem not mine.
DM73 is complete new shell and designed to be fired from L55/A1 cannon from the beginning, meanwhile DM53 is almost two decades old and was designed for L44 cannon initially.
DM53 wasn’t designed for the OG L/44, too high of pressure. Which is why DM43 is fired at most.
The only way DM53 cannot be fired is if the newer cannon has a lower chamber pressure limits, which would impact DM73 as well.
Correction, its true that DM53 was designed for L55 initially but it can also fired from L44 without any major issue except increased barrel wear.
Initial DM53 isn’t compatible with L55/A1 cannon due to increased pressure on new cannon, you need to use DM53A1 if you want to fire 53 version.
DM53 went into service 1998, If I remember correctly. It was started to phase out DM53 roughly a decade before 2A7V entered service. Last shells of the DM53 family (DM53A1) were given away four years ago. All before the A7 entered service. DM53 is not even coded in their fire control computers anymore. Means they indeed can’t practically fire it. The computer wouldn’t recognize the shell, if loaded.
Even if it would have been possible: Bundeswehr wouldn’t ever allow to use these shells with their precious L/55A1 high pressure guns. Barrel wear of DM53 is too high. Standard shells are DM73 (DM63 penetrator + more propellant for higher pen) and soon the new DM83 (everything newly designed). As far as I know DM73 and DM83 can only be fired with L55A1 high pressure guns.
2 Likes
“The whole has an equivalent of 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHA on the turret front against all chemical energy rounds, and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) for kinetic energy penetrators (APFSDS or “sabot” rounds). The M1 also tried in operations reactive armor over the track skirts to defeat RPGs, mostly encountered in an urban environment, or slat armor (rear and rear fuel cells) against ATGMs. A Kevlar liner prevents any spalling.”
As always Alvis, you do you 
2 Likes
the author did not also provide source, your just reposting the same thing. there spall liner but with no source.
1 Like
Did you really just use that as a source? Seriously?
2 Likes