If that guy wanted to bring my stats into the conversation, I showed that even they back up my argument, whereas all he did was try to insult and discredit me—typical behavior for a “Russia main.” I’ve spent time on this forum and seen that most of the community agrees Russian vehicles are vastly superior to NATO ones—unlike in real life—and that the vast majority of those defending Russian vehicles are “Russia mains” with the clear, selfish goal of keeping their nation at a distinct advantage over the others.
1 Like
Ah yes, the Russian main in question:
Lmao thats just bullsht.
A3 was specifically designed to defeat ERA buddy.
Stop making false claims.
it is somewhat true tho, M829A3 was designed primarily to defeat kontakt 5 not Relikt, that’s why M829A4 exists wich its designed to defeat Relikt and kontakt 5, check patents from Alliant Techsystems for more information
1 Like
is that why a patent filed during A3s development specifically calls out a design as being effective against dual flyer plate ERA?
you know the type of ERA that relikt is but K5 is not?
and also how right before A3 development started russia began showing off kaktus ERA, which is functionally the same as relikt and if anything more effective than relikt?
3 Likes
relikt was only seen in 2006 the patent was drawn in 1999-2000, during this time kaktus ERA was the predecesor to Relikt but we dont know if it can actually defeat relikt, and relikt was heavily modified compared to kaktus, in paper it technically could defeat relikt, but this was only on paper and there wasnt any reliability considering it was meant to go against kaktus at most, relikt its essentially different even tho it comes from kaktus developement
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
so I guess the manufacturers patenting a design that explicitly calls out dual flyerplate ERA and effectiveness against that means that the round is ineffective against the dual flyerplate ERA that entered service right after the round
and you know the only dual flyerplate ERA to enter service in that timeframe
10/10 logic
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Guys either move it to DM’s or leave each other alone.
2 Likes
I really want a proof/photo/videos that RELIKT can tank the APFSDS from the RU MOD. Since Gaijin does the same standard for NATO equipment.
However, according to some guys on this forum, T-series are really bad → I would like the DEV to make the T-series armor as bad as the Ariete since we do not have official Armor dokument from the RU MOD.
It just make sense if you think about it.
4 Likes
Absolutely agree that we should see what sources aré to back up the performance of russian vehicles cuz they aré overperforming by a lot, but i also am in a neutral position where as much as i dont like russian vehicles because i know how bad they aré irl, there Is also a limit to missinformation, hence why my discussion with alphairus and his claims
1 Like
To bring this forum back up on topic, well not to explicitly say the Pantsir is too strong or ay “Russian bias”
(I personally don’t think it is, comparative to what the seasoned CAS players abilities are/the focus on fast paced gameplay and how that doesn’t work well with current multi-vehicle SAMS and time-old map designs that are unacommodating.
I wanted to address the 95Ya6m missile, as some people straight up don’t believe it has the remote detonation capibility that’s completely reliant on the radar, and that “hit-to-kill” strictly meant the missile itself has to directly hit the aircraft. mainly due to the fact that with seasoned players, they are used to the traditional proximity detonation of most missles. While also knowing they can cause the missile to detonate mid flight by throwing rockets at it, or completely gimp it if you’re in a helicopter by launching munitions last minute that cause it to detonate before hitting the target, so the fact it can avoid gimmicky tactics seems to annoy people.
If you look at some sources regarding the missile, you’d take note that the word “Zavesa” is used. Which translates to “curtain.” This would imply that this hit-to-kill system uses some form of directed fragmentation.
While doing some digging, I also found this image, which seems to be showing the testing of a high speed projectile with the similar warhead type represented in-game. It’s also important to note the speed of the warhead at the time of detonation.
Putting these 2 together, it would be a solid inference on how the warhead operates.
idk why people would doubt of remote detonation when ahead uses the same principle but applied differently on the missile wich recieves datalink information of the radar on the target its going against and this could likely tell the missile when to detonate, its not that hard specially on a missile
There were huge doubts about that which then followed into the “plausibility” of how much fragmentation it could produce since previously on protection analysis, it would show the fragmentation, though it was extremely slow. They changed it now to where it just shows a basic explosion
the frag ammount was pretty doubtful tho, i will admit that was very weird, it was somewhere between 9000 or so fragments?
I think it was 5 thousand last time I checked, but I definetely understand that can very well be pretty doubtful, but granted missiles of similar size or slightly brigger can multiply their fragmentation well over that amount, I wouldn’t say it’s not possible ethier, given how technology keeps advancing.
I wouldn’t use the image above for reference on fragmentation count since this was just the testing of the warhead type