Then interesting what they might bring Italy didn’t had any prolonged history of tank construction maybe something innovative can born for this new age. Still doubt that Germans willingly give their crown.
Exactly, the T-62 used a smoothbore gun and APFSDS, while many NATO countries were still using APDS in 105mm guns, and it was soon after that the T-64 emerged, since the T-62 was only made to fill gaps.
1 Like
Why would germany give their crown? 50% of the Leonardo/Rheinmetall JV is german. The german government wont care if Rheinmetall banks in 50% of the money of the IMBT or if KNDS germany (and Rheinmetall) banks 50% of the money of MGCS. The future MBT situation in Europe is a literal win win for the german MIC
Technological debt regarding electronics also killed Soviet weapon development by the 1980s. It was bad before 1980s for more electronical systems so MBT weren’t really affected but the emergence of thermal sights and other complex electronics device as standard on MBTs made it impossible for the USSR to compete.
The early APFSDS fired by the T-62 has more in common with late APDS than it has with monobloc APFSDS you’re probably thinking off.
Because essentially, the win rate of sim is entirely determined by Russia, it is normal for Chinese players to have a 70% win rate. Even if only one person plays the 99A in sim this month, their win rate will also become 70% because of Russia.
It certainly wasn’t a good time; maintaining or updating military projects wasn’t viable. The T-72 didn’t even receive thermal sights, unlike the T-80. Many things were shelved and abandoned, like the Yak-141, for example, and the Drozd, which wasn’t produced in large numbers. To make matters worse, shortly after, a guy came along with his “Perestroika” and “Glasnost,” which only aggravated everything, but that’s not the point of this topic. Well, goodbye, I have to go.
But it was already an advance, and shortly afterwards the T-64 emerged, which only increased the Soviet armored advantages: 125mm guns, composite armor, and new fire control systems.
1 Like
NAFO fanboy ≠ Objective fact
The perfect case study is T-72 leading to abrams and Leopard 2, or Mig-25 leading to F-15
Disregarding fact just because it comes from a Pro-NATO user is pathetic, and shows the insecurity and lack of legitimacy within the russian defense industry and it’s fans
Lmao what ?
The cold war is over boys, you can calm down.
Not that you have double standarts like DM63 penning trough Relict is fact and Kh-38MT is fiction disregarding that both them have no video evidence.
2 Likes
You still seem to get very offended when anyone criticises the sloppy quality of RU equipment no?
People are only irritated at the state of Russia in game because their IRL sloppiness isn’t reflected, wouldn’t be so obnoxious is they modelled corruption in factories or supply chains would it,
Wouldn’t be very fun if your LFP fell off because the welds failed, and so on.
Both of those are fairly reasonable statements given all sources surrounding both
Except it wasn’t / isn’t?
1 Like
Baozi called you out on it multiple times until you backtracked lol
In NAFO standarts
You are proving my point
If your point is that you and your friends are horribly biased then yes
1 Like
yes? like you can read Baozis sources on the IMBT and mine on the DM73 and youve been wrong both times.
No in Having-a-brain-standards
Biased towards what? Proper, free, non corrupt, independent sources?
1 Like
I don’t think so, you just like to make everything hostile.
I can acknowledge the equipment of both sides. I don’t have a horse in the race for either nato or the ussr, so i don’t need to rely on propangda of either side.
Unlike you:
Yaaawn…
5 Likes
How many times has this topic been derailed?
1 Like
Horribly biased is the new term for factually correct?
Dm63A1 has an Anti-ERA tip quoted to negate the effects of KE ERA by up to 60%, allowing the main round to do the rest and then penetrate the composite behind, is it not unreasonable to assume that statement applies when KE ERA has proven ineffective in a certain combat theatre?
The KH38MT isn’t in Russian or Foreign arsenals, it hasn’t been fired from an aircraft, nor has it been carried by an aircraft. The arguments for it’s existence come from ‘it’s a modular missile’ and ‘the seeker exists’, so it’s existence is purely theoretical, when this was brought up, you decided to deny it, while offering no sources or evidence to the contrary.
Both of these are, as far as we know, correct assumptions, and they hold more weight than the defending parties due to sources, observations and history
1 Like