Well, at least the A1 variants that were upgraded to the A5 standard don’t have composite armor.
However, the A3 and A4 variants have spaced armor similar to 2K or Rad90.
Interesting. That could prove fun to have
It is.
It doesn’t matter what you personally think is high or not, I’ve got primary source documents that go into exact detail on this stuff, and I’ll stick with what is written in such documents.
‘‘Basic Structure’’
‘‘Front Armor’’
Listed seperately with their individual weights.
No kidding!
The whole point of the comparison is to show the fallacy in the argument.
And I’ve actually worked on M1 tanks. So…
The “suspension” on an M1 tank are a bunch of torsion bars and rotary shock absorbers that only weigh a few hundred pounds each. 14 of them do not add up to 30% of 65 tons.
An M1’s tracks weigh 5 tons.
The roadwheels are aluminum so don’t even weigh more than a ton or two.
So you or your sources are mistaken. 30% is closer to the entire powertrain.
Okay?
That doesn’t change the fact that I’ll take primary source US documents over a stranger’s opinion.
I’ve provided you with the exact document, so there’s no reason for you to remain ignorant and not read through it yourself. Your reply makes it very clear you haven’t done so.
And if you still believe the data I’ve shared is incorrect, show me a source of higher authority of your own and I’ll gladly change my mind on the topic, but until then I’ll stick with what I’ve got.
Lol. You didn’t provide a document. You provided a scan of the cover of an old test report for the CATTB which was a experimental test, not even an actual M1.
Anyway I have already exceeded my quota for pedantic arguments with ppl who can’t be argued with for the week.
You can go google all of the information I have told you and see I am correct. But you don’t have to apologize or thank me.
going off topic
1 Like
And if you took the time to google said report and then read it’s contents, you’d find multiple pages dedicated to the standard M1A1 hull.
‘‘The Earth is flat’’
‘‘Can you show me evidence?’’
‘‘Just google it’’
I asked you to show me sources of your own which support your position, you then come back with the ‘‘Just google it’’ response that’s typical of anyone who doesn’t really have any sources that back up their case.
The Merkava 3 weighs around 60 tons. The Merkava 4 in full combat load weighs 80 tons.
If the extra 20 tons didn’t come from armor - where did it come from?
You specifically raised the issue of structural components within the context of the 20 ton gain.
1 Like
I raised the issue in response to someone comparing a Minicooper to an AML.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I know this topic is about ground forces, but I won’t open a new topic for a simple query.
My question is: irl, was the Kfir not designed as a strike aircraft? Or am I mistaken? It seems to me that it should be classified as an attack aircraft. From what I have seen, the F-16s replaced the Mirage III as air superiority fighters, and the Nesher/Kfir were intended to replace the A-4s. In WT, Israel lacks attack aircraft above 9.3, and the Nesher/Kfir only have two A/A missiles while their CAS options are decent.
In WT, should they be classified as attack aircraft? What do you think?
nope
hi dude
I think you can help me better than that damned Wikipedia and AI
Maybe I’m wrong, but if the F-16 became the new multirole fighter, what role did the Kfir play? And what replaced the A-4? Also, why did the Kfirs only carry 2 AA missiles, and unlike the Mirage IIICJ, did they have a decent load of bombs and rockets?
Kfir was an air superiority fighter
Honestly, I don’t think anything directly replaced the A-4
The IIICJ had a third pylon for a radar missile and the experience using the mirage’s radar was horrible by israeli pilots so they just decided to ditch it
thanks for your help
Which Kfir are you talking about?
IAI is still marketing the Kfir as a multirole fighter with emphasis on ground strike capabilities.
Although this does not mean the focus was the same throughout the entire program or in Israeli service.
I was referring to the Nesher and the early Kfir, which are the closest to the Mirage V.
Kfir C.7 and later models have decent options for being multirole.
2 Likes
i mean, irl the SK-105 is a tank destroyer, however Gaijin classified it as a light tank in WT due to its gameplay. I think the Nesher and Kfir canard could fit better as attack aircraft, which is a positive thing for GRB.
I’m sure it’s the best for the WT air tree. It’s just that Gaijin has completely neglected the Israeli air tech tree. Most of the aircraft don’t even have a decent variety of skins, and many of them still can’t have custom skins applied.
I don’t understand how such a BIG vehicle, with such an ineffective FCS, is at 7.3. It should at least have a rangefinder… There are much older vehicles with rangefinders. Damn, even the Panther II and the Tiger 105mm have rangefinders.
1 Like
Both the tiger 105 and the panther 2 are not really vehicles