In game I agree they are a poor tank, we were referring more to real world performance.
Additional armour would allow the CR2 to kind of brawl instead of having to sit back and support.
Literally all oscillating turret tanks (of which 7000 AMX-13) :
am I a joke to you ?
1 Like
That’s great and all but I was talking about tanks.
-
Russia did invent ERA, in the 1949 but it didn’t go into serial production until the early 1980s for a few reasons. That is was pointless at the time, and the problems they faced creating it, at which time the Israel’s in 1979-1981 had made their own version to implement on tanks. Both nations put ERA into production at the same time but Russia did invent this, that is irrefutable.
-
The AMX-13 is an assist loader. Not an auto loader, Russia was the first to use this concept to reduce crew size.
Russia may have invented the concept(and one that wasn’t working properly at the time), but a German scientist with the help of the Israelis were the first to make it a reality and deploy it operationally.
???
The AMX-13 is literally an autoloader. It’s a fully mechanical system reloading the main gun. There is no human interaction in it other than refilling the autoloader once it’s empty similar to what you would need to do on an empty soviet autoloader. The French made this system specifically to remove the human loader from the tank and make the tank smaller/lighter that way.
IS-6 is an assist loader, with a mechanical system helping the loader but not outright replacing it.
2 Likes
Armor is one thing, which will get neglected by everyone with half a braincell anyways.
What CR2 needs is a buff to the absurd big breach and front plate, mobility and maybe even a better shell.
Right now they are just all around not fun to play.
The AMX-13 is explicitly an auto loader.
Soviets were not the first, nor was the French; USA invented the tank autoloader, and France was the first to put a vehicle in service with an autoloader.
5 Likes
No they didn’t, they actively failed by the 1960s to invent a functioning piece of ERA that would work.
The initial prototypes failed due to insufficient theoretical analysis and poor design, and the project was shelved. So they came up with the idea, but they couldn’t create a functional piece of ERA, which later the German scientist with Isreal actively made.
The concept was theirs, the functional ERA was invented by Isreal and a German scientist.
There we go, I never knew that the first half of that.
They never invented the ERA in of itself as we know it, the concept was russian. Not the ERA we seen in the 1980s.
1 Like
AMX-13 would like to have a word.
Strv-103 would also like to have a word.
1 Like
You basically have to push 2 buttons instead of 1, but at no point any crew member touches the round directly when it’s inside the tank like an assist loader would imply
Besides AMX-13 was already a 3 crew tank just like T-64 a decade later, so russia didn’t invent anything on that front either
1 Like
it was not
concept was tested in WW2 by Australia
I don’t speak French, but I’m pretty sure cranking over the drum loader is an assisted loader no?
Please find a source for this “autonomous” Loading system.
Also, wasn’t implying Russia was the first to use 3 man crews if it came off that way.
They didn’t use it as a main power plant :)
They used as an auxiliary I believe for the hydraulic system.
Russia came up with the concept, and began to test it. It was stalled up until the advent of RPGs being all over that prompted them to restart the project, additionally yes Israel did make their own, but they came out about the same time, with the Israel development taking less time, likely from looking at others’ past experiences
? This Claim makes no sense, HEAT “threats” had propagated for almost four decades at that point.
- Explosive Lensing, was conceptually developed in the 1790’s (by Franz von Baader)
- Shaped Charges were Empirically demonstrated in the 1880’s (by von Foerster)
- Mid 1939 sees the first batch of 7.5cm HEAT shells delivered to the Germans
- The Bazooka sees service in North Africa starting 1941(Half a Million are built by the end of the war and subsequently supplanted by the M72 in 1963 as war reserves are expended, though supported by the M31 rifle grenade, until replaced at a squad level by novel 40mm HE-DP designs fired from the M203)
- Panzerfaust follows shortly afterwards(more than 8 Million of all types are built in the following three years).
By 1975 the M47 Dragon(FGM-77) enters service so you also get to consider actual tactically useful man-portable SACLOS launchers (200,000 rounds were built by 1981, and the SS.10 NORD (similar to AT-3 / 9M14 Sagger) is really only a minimum viable product) so its not as if there was no threats to be seen prior to 1980.
And that doesn’t even touch on systems like the BGM-71 TOW turning up in '72 in numbers.
5 Likes
The Strv 103’s gas turbine was the primary power plant.
It had a 2nd engine for redundancy and fuel savings when stationary.
This argument never makes any sense - I can sit in my CR2 any day of the week and acknowledge that the T-80 does everything my tank does and better in-game. Your T-80 can point anywhere on my tank except the absolute middle of my turret cheeks, and pen it. You can pen any part of my UFP, LFP, and I have a gaping mantlet that isn’t a volumetric hellhole. I’m also massive, fat, slow and have the second worst top tier round(and have a sub-400mm pen round stock).
Your T-80 has worse reverse speed and marginally less gun depression - hardly relevant when your tank has the lowest silhouette of any MBT, is very nimble, and excels in both close and long range maps.
I wish you Russia fanboys would either:
A) Wake up and smell the coffee
B) Force yourself onto a truly bad MBT, like the Ariete/CR2/Leclerc, then see what it actually means to be a bad MBT.
Won’t be replying to the slurry of arguments when I wake up
2 Likes
You do realize i dont give a damn about those tanks lmao, and youre telling me? I dont care about russian tanks being good or bad. Ive never compared any tank in this thread. Alot of useless words were written, maybe useful for someone else but go to the others who were yapping about abrams vs T-80 whatever.
And really isnt my issue when almost every nato country has a good relevant leo line up in their non german techtree. And are a better pick for tournaments than T-80s solidifying that “skill issue” is at the top of the problem with any of the players in this thread.
Just a reminder i never really spoke or compared with it abrams i just laughed at this thread and players not with russian tanks talking about them as if they have more knowledge.
2 Likes
Ahh, i see why i was cherry picked to respond to, that message of mine had been liked by 5 russian mains and it pissed off а British main?
@ron_23 you see how people are in this thread? I probably have the least amount of involvement for any tank v tank related comparison and bro brought me out as if I am the one who’s complaining about russian tanks being bad… in any or shape.
2 Likes
Its primary engine was the diesel…?
@ 8:45