Reducing the loading time itself is a balanced means, and it will be meaningless if it does so.
Internet sprayers are everywhere. What I can’t understand is that so many of you are really trying to collect evidence and information to refute an ignorant person, and he did nothing but type. He won because he made fun of you.
I wouldn’t listen to this guy, he thinks the Apache’s chaingun can fire GAU-8 rounds because a single website from the 90s vaguely implies it.
3 Likes
the source that was on the website was removed. i told you this
crazy how you people keep saying this when gaijin already acknowledged it, and you’ve had abrams crew members flat out make videos telling you it does.
now that i remember someone on the old forums talked about the russian auto loader firing faster than what is in-game currently.
Yeah, integrated spall liners aren’t visible to the crew since they’re integrated into the armor.
I copy-pasted the bug report from one of Sartt’s earlier posts, him not bothering to do that was the only difference between us.
No, they don’t. A liner is a liner because it lines/backs something, which means it can be backing for literally anything, not just the inner-most layer of armor.
Except that it can through absorbing and reflecting the shockwave caused by a round penetrating the armor, which is the only way to actually reduce the amount of spall. The current curtain-style spall liner does virtually nothing to reduce the amount of spall, all it does is catch spall that is generated from the armor.
3 Likes
You’re wasting your time with these fools.
Funny when they use totally different size cartridges
1 Like
Wait what?
Technical data disagrees with you
Hey, there’s a guy who knows what he’s talking about. Didn’t know the T-80UD was the same way.
T-80UE-1, T-80U/M/K/A/M2/D and all based upon T-80U found in game use same 6EC43 autoloader, however even T-64/A have 6 sec reload time, T-80B/64B together use same autoloader so it’s 6 seconds too. I think BVM has 6,5 because it doesnt use 9M112, so Gaijin cant give it 7,1 so they result with what they believe instead.
That does however raise a question of why T-64A has 7,1 sec reload if it doesnt have any guided ammunition, but then again T-64A is one of the oldest vehicles in the game if you consider talking about that era, and by far it’s worse than T-72A that is worse than T-72M1, so it’s worst T serie on 9.3 out of all 9.3 T-series.
aknowledged =/= agreed with it, been couple more times that Gaijin either never implemented it or turned 180 and declined a report after it was “aknowledged”.
I am an Abrams crewmember. It doesn’t have internal spall liners. This was explained in detail, the kevlar portion of the armor is meant to provide the armor with multi-hit capability without degradation and does little to nothing to stop spalling in the crew compartment.
Gaijin never “acknowledged” the Abrams having a spall liner. Their entire ballistics model is fudged anyway and what you should be fighting for is the kevlar vests and helmets that are worn by every modern tank crewman.
5 Likes
Without ace (expert) it 6.4 Russia are 6.5
I don’t think it count as faster more like the same reload rate rate
Uh huh sure you are. Still doesn’t mean anything when i’ve talked to actual people who have commanded, been the gunners of Abrams and have made them and they all say it does. Not only do we have actual crew members and ex-crewmembers that play this game and they’ve all said the Abrams has a spall liner. So you vs everyone else’s word mean nothing.
they acknowledge the bug reports and the information in them. Just like they acknowledged the Bradley spall liners, even though they somehow still screwed that up. All the Tanks IFV and APCs starting from the 1960s all had some sort of Kevlar spall liner in them, even the M113s have spall liners.
there was a link certifying the apache could load the rounds, something that other guy won’t admit to. Its an old link and had more link but all are gone now.
lol, that is 120% not a thing. The feed system for the M230 is just barely big enough for a 30x113mm cartridge.
Even if the chamber could hold the round and withstand the pressure of firing it, you’d never get a cartridge 60mm longer into the aircraft.
30mm Cannon Ammunition (fas.org) the link at the bottom of the page said otherwise. The link is no longer available.
" The 30mm lightweight family of ammunition was developed to optimize the air-to-ground mission of the U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter. This ammunition family is also compatible with all 30mm x 113 gun systems."
Clearly not compatible with the 30x173 according to your own source…
2 Likes