Well actually thats exactly what it is in both cases. The basis for ANY industrial execution comes from theoretical discovery. Thats how engineering works actually by heavily relying on applied science. Saying that intelectual/theoretical discovery is less important than the industrial execution is oblivious.
T-34 standardized it as a philosophy of protecting the tank
So basically T64A was the first standardized composite armor tank.
completely different philosophy and design but okay. On that matter the US was the very first in 1945 with a T22E1 or something like that
Forgot this even existed…
The irony… On the other hand Kontakt 5 was the first one to combat darts
In that sense Ferdinand was the first electric tank even though it had 2 engines. T-80 is the first solely turbine engine driven
Im not saying that tho. Im saying that laying the mathematical foundation and doing the actual invention are 2 separate things. Otherwise Sputnik 1 would be a british invention since putting a Sattelite into orbit is impossible without Newtons work.
No. That’s the French who did it first. They pioneered the idea of using slope armor to improve tank protection 20 years before the T-34 was even a thing. In fact, check the FCM-36, they even sloped the side armor.
The T-34 is the one that comes to mind because of how many were produced and how impactful it was on the war its slope armor design was built upon a French idea.
Not, it was the same philosophy between the two. Add an autoloader to remove a crew and make the tank smaller/lighter. The French again did it first. The USSR did it later in a more mechanized manner because technology had evolved by then.
Yes, first to be put in production like that. Though as said, the technology itself was mastered before that in the US, simply not used.
Yes. On a side note, the US experimented with heavy ERA in the 90s, and patented a double action ERA 10 years before Relikt. They most likely didn’t bother installing it because it wasn’t needed and was in the process of being countered by newer shells. Why weight down your tank with protection that doesn’t work against modern ammo?
Interesting, good info! Will check FCM-36, I completely disregarded the baguettes
Its completely different principle aswell, T64 can choose which shell to load in terms that you can put 3-4 different types of shells and fire them in whichever order you want/need
AMX was a revolver type autoloader and what and how you load thats it. But the tech played a role in here ofc
Relikt is relatively new ERA, Kontakt 5 was the first one to improve protection against darts. But imo ERA shouldnt be used as a sole way of protection but more like a stopgap or like an add-on. Basically even the T90M without ERA is meh. The whole scheme of protection is based on ERA working and not on actual armor being good. It started as an add on/stop gap but now they use it as a regular thing and the fact that it is getting surpassed by modern ammo…well T14 is the proof of that somewhat
Also Chobham armor with spall-reducing internal backing plates and spall-suppressing hull construction, but that kind of protection is only offered for the comfort and well-being of Russian mains so we can’t have that comrade.
France could also have an ERA like Kontakt 5 (it was reported and accepted years ago), but it seems that the devs use realism as something that can be added or removed at will for pure self-interest, and because of their obsession with maintaining a balance that is little less than mediocre thanks to their extreme limitations in map size, shameful damage models, and extremely simple penetration models.
They need ERA because they’re essentially using pre-built tanks whose internal armor can’t be upgraded. For example, the T-80BVM has the armor of a T-80BV, and the T-90M is simply a T-90A with the rear of the turret cut off and lengthened; the internal armor is exactly the same. Therefore, to maintain a minimum level of protection, they can only add ERA. This is something some NATO countries have also done, adding ERA to their M60s or AMX-30B2s, and Israel has modified its Centurions and M60s.
Its not about the balance but about the money and thus their policies of doing business derive from it…They could acchieve the same amount of money without going into the most modern era. Making the tanks resemble as much as possible what they are irl and stopping at lets say 1980 for example or 1985. whatever unlike what they are doing now with copy paste, bug fest, inventing stuff etc. Theres plenty of armor stuff to be used by that period and info on them to make them much MUCH better than they currently are
I agree but but thats just the cheap option of upgrading tanks…doing it properly AND adding ERA could also be one of the ways but the mentality of “that will do” is still plaguing them
Yeah, most people do to be honest. The French really had great weaponry in 1940 but were plagued by doctrine problems. It pretty much goes like this for USSR:
French FT-17(first sloped armor tank)
American Christie M1931 tank using FT-17 design as a base to start from
USSR smuggles M1931 plans and two chassis pretty much illegally
in 1932, BT tank series(with sloped armor) born out of that, almost a 1/1 copy of M1931 at first
T-34 tank built upon BT tank experience.
The AMX-13 can also choose afaik. It has a lever for right revolver and a lever for left revolver. If you load all AP in one, all HE in one, you can choose what type of shell to reload between AP and HE, which was good enough as a choice in 1950.
Agreed. Also the mentality of ‘Don’t change what works’ resulting in super slow progress at time. Работает не трогай as the russians say it. This is a lot because of the Brezhnev era stagnation, where bureaucracy discouraged initiative and punished failure more than mediocrity.
Correct! There is absolutely no denying that the western model was FAR superior to the USSRs. The people did try to invent stuff and push them through like Ufimtsev did with his stealth thingy but instead of them actually keeping it a secret they disregarded it completely and thats not the only case of that happening only (my opinion) because someone higher up didnt understand it and couldnt exploit it for its own benefit. There were also tank tech demos of various sorts which were also rejected because of it and the lack of technology which than came few years later but the project was scrapped and never renewed
FT was basically the first tank with a modern layout too. Driver up front, turret between them and the engine, with firewalls to separate the crew and the engine. Earlier tanks just shoved everyone together with the engine and said “ah they’ll be fine probably”
Most of the nerds are towards western tanks like the turret basket, and the blow out panels being removed while Russian vehicles hardly get any nerfs. I’m not hating on Russia I just think that enough is enough and Russia needs major nerfs every now and then.
Trunnions that eat all spall while creating none (do it for all trunnions while also adding it for everyone else). Give the BMPT its turret basket, remove the anti spall armour around the turret basket of russian tanks (not the actual spall liner just the armour around it that its it for no reason). Just a couple of the top of my head.
The overperforming Relict ERA needs to be nerfed to make it more reasonable too. And the laughably unrealistic pinpoint accuracy of Russian autocannons, especially the lack of wobble on BMPT barrels which is clearly visible in IRL video footage but conveniently not reflected in game.
