This talks about the experimental Hughes “Hunter Killer” package which used “Auto Track” and “optical tracking” The commander simply had to press a button to tag and autotrack then pass the target to the laser or thermals 1 time. [Not constantly holding the laser. This is exactly the same operation the T90M and Chinese tanks use.]
This is the exact system that became the Seps “Hunker Killer” upgrade Hughes made later en masse to GD for the SEP upgrades. It was a mix between package 3 and package 5 [on the HIMAG]. Optical/Thermal and persistent laser abilities.
It talks about the exact same CITV thats stabilized and independent that was later added.
This proves they were the testbeds and proof of concepts. So whatever the HSTVL gets the M1a2 Seps should at least be capable of.
Also, I keep hearing the argument these were not made for aircraft but the Thermals/Laser do not care. They are told to track a specific thermal signature then confirmed by lasing it and create a “auto track” solution. While its not true Autotracking like radar systems get it is the same and even superior to most the tanks in game that use the SAME EXACT METHODS. They also are not using Radar. They also use a combo of Laser/Thermals…The only differance is the Ruskis have a very slow timed fuse HE round where as the US now gets a 400 m/s faster VT shell with a much better prox shell.
The T90m has the French version of this exact technology but with worse resolution. 770ishx670ish vs the M1a2 Seps 800x600. Also its rated to 5km vs the 4km of the French. Then the denoising on the Sep V2 just adds clarity.
Sep 3 gets dual sensors to sharpen the tank but its the same system with upgraded software and sensors.
So if the T90m gets it and the HSTVL gets it so does the Seps…This isnt complicated. Simply add the HSTVL system to the SEP [Even though its surely been upgraded.]
On a sidenote. I would be shocked if the STRV and Leos and any super modern tanks with CITV cannot do this. Thats what the CITV is for, to tag second targets that will then be auto tracked using a mix of thermals, weather conditions and distances to provide a firing solution.
Its stuid they are acting like the Ruskis and Chinese found some super secret method of tracking when we can look up the systems. Its even more stupid the US would make a anti air, air burst, anti structure shell that is so accurate it blows up in a house within 18 inches of its intended target and not make a system that can actually use it…Just because the brochure doesn’t clearly mention helicopters, doesnt mean its not just common sense.
3 Likes
Why don’t you create a report about it?
1 Like
I will but Spookston already shared a bunch of stuff from a damned Tester of the HSTVL and they still murdered that baby, I have given them measurments from the M1s proving there math is way way wrong and it clearly has DU and its why the M1a2 does go through road wheels faster than the M1/a1 and other vehichles. Its the reason DARPA wanted to shorten the tank. [So they could keep the DU]
Hell they turned a application from the Army for DU handling permits specifically for GD employees to insert DU upgraded armor blocks into the machine and they somehow spun it into “It only had permission for 5 test hulls” which is clearly BS considering those tanks were made then the Army reapplied in 2006, 2013. Hell it clearly states its for giving the M1a2 frontal immunity to current rounds…
Since 2014 Ive been involved with tons of reports and they never go anywhere. Russia always gets things it never has in the field or that clearly dont work in actual combat but “Trust us bro” and the US always gets punished for having tons of testing, strict requirements and different administrations with different priorities.
They shoot down logic, straight up evidence and actual combat footage using obscure footnotes about failures years before they were changed or ironed out.
The Aries gun is the perfect example. It was made to defeat T80s frontally and was effective but not reliable enough vs T90s [hence the 90mm gun request] It also tested right next to the M774 round and had the same penetration with less post pen DMG… M774 was rated at 410mm and 270 @ 60 IRL which makes sense because thats about 15% over a T80s armor…
After we proved this and even had a program engineer say the same exact thing they still said no and gave it 275mm pen with terrible @60 and HORRIBLE DMG. It literally yellows the T80 autoloader and crew from the side and requires 3 shots. Meanwhile the 2S38 shooting a tiny 57mm that is half its length at much less velocity gets 227mm with better post pen dmg.
Sorry for rant, but they never change anything unless community gets angry and they get embarrassed and even then is only 25% odds.
5 Likes
Wont help. They hate US tanks and especially experimental ones. All darts are 25% under performing at high tier. Darts that were made to defeat Relic and K5 still suffer from the exact same 180mm-240mm upto 40% penetration nerfs…Pointed out that the rounds were literally made to defeat soviet ERA an still nothing. They act like 180mm-240mm extra plates,
2 Likes
From any angle. That’s the biggest bugbear. They should only provide significant protection against APFSDS when angled at 60+ degrees.
2 Likes
Okay?
Which Gaijin agrees with and is currently in-game as such [though it’s a marginal difference currently, much to my sometimes stress].
The United States says SEP2 and older Abrams do not have hulls that use DU armor arrays. They publicly claim improvements, but do not provide information on what those improvements are.
HAHAHA!
25%? Really?
You really think M829A2 can penetrate 920mm of armor at 2000 meters?
Cause the United States says it doesn’t. USA claims ~700, and what it is in-game is 690mm. 345 / cos60.
That’s within margin of error.
There are no darts in War Thunder designed to defeat Relict.
And K5 + T-72B armor array can get defeated by DM53 and M829A2 in-game.
2S38 has half the post pen damage as HSTVL’s round, because it weighs half as much and pens less.
That’s my defense of American military equipment…
There are issues with classified armor, and the only solution there is to either suggest that Gaijin change how they estimate protection, or get documents publicly released legally.
I don’t think the US has ever made an official claim about its penetration as it’s still classified. Only claim I know of is that is was supposed to brute force through K5 at close range. Anything other than that is guesstimating based on penetrator dimensions combined with the brute force claim. In theory the brute force claim gives a baseline of minimum pen but we don’t know the exact distance perforation of a K5 equipped tank would happen at either.
Although yes underperforming by 25% is most likely an incorrect assumption.
1 Like
Gaijin is being very stubborn about giving it 372mm of pen…
No joy for anything besides the BMPT and 2S38.