According to some of the sources available the PW-229 engines were fitted on F-15E 90-0233 and up. Photos of this specific aircraft can already be dated back to 1993.
2 Likes
Regarding NGAPs armor, gaijin is going to have to make an educated guess since there are literally no figures out there since it’s highly classified. That being said, considering sepv3 was a response to the T14 Armata you can probably make a safe guestimation that it probably offers 600 KE plus armor on the hull. And that’s also based on the fact that the army in the early 90s in testing managed to get a 35% increase in KE on the m1a2s hull(550mm KE of armor) which was 30 years ago. The turret is probably close to 850mm to 1000mm KE on the turret.
4 Likes
Every new day brings a new amazing way for people here to moan about Russian tanks…Amazing just how much people invest their time and mind into thinking of a new way to cry about a made up story which makes themselves a victim of a non existent threat
2 Likes
While I do agree with the sentiment, CAS gameplay heavily leans in Russia and France’s favor.
Yes mavericks can be used in top tier but it cannot be used the same way as the Kh-38s and Hammers. For mavericks to be used effectively, the aircraft needs to do medium-short range pop-up attacks as it’s the best way of reducing the amount of time for spaa’s to react.
Unfortunately this tactic puts you within range of almost all top tier spaa (excluding the baguette launcher).
The playstyle of the Kh-38 (debatable for the Hammer) makes you completely invulnerable to spaa.
5 Likes
XD, meanwhile the Japanese:
Type 10 - 2010
Type 16 -2016
TKX - 2000-2010
ICV (P) - 2024(?)
RCV (P) - 2024 (?)
1 Like
Mavericks wouldn’t be so bad if they actually un-gimped them. Their flight profile is wrong which was bug reported. Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
Then go play the T-90M, see how that goes.
1 Like
I play T-90M and its quite a good tank.
While Abrams offers better reload and Mobility, T-90M offers superior:
-Protection
-Awareness
-Survivability
So yea T-90M is not bad by any means.
2 Likes
Yes he did, I see him every America post, if post talking about improve American vehicle or aircraft he will be there and said no need because it already balance or it already perfect. Not sure why
It’s only decent because a majority of the GRB players are idiots. It’s such an easy tank to fight, but because so many players just aim around center mass it just gets away with more than it should.
1 Like
I did better in the 90M yet hated it more than the BVM. Seriously hate the 4kph reverse
Its not, ever since autoloaders introduced T-Series survivability increased a lot.
In fact after turret basket and FCS addition Abrams and Leopards became much easier tanks to deal with, just shoot them from their Side or Lfp they either get one shot or heavily crippled.
Not to mention they also increased spalling on Leopards quite a lot on Lfp shots.
1 Like
In principle, the T-90Ms are made entirely from the T-90A, with the rear of the turret cut off to make it longer and Relikt armor and updated electronics added.
In War Thunder, only in name.
SEPv2 and SEP are literally the exact same thing as the 1992 baseline M1A2, except better thermals and, in SEPv2’s case, being heavier and slower.
Because Gaijin did not bother to model a single armor upgrade the tank went through on that 14 year timeframe.
I’m not even going to talk about the controversial hull- both SEP and SEPv2 should have better turret armor on the sides and front, officially confirmed and verified, but Gaijin refuses to model it still.
So… no, we don’t have any vehicle past 1992, actually.
In fact, if anything, they are all even worse than what the 1992 one should be, given the Mía modelled and underperforming fuel tank bulkheads and turret ring (leaving aside all of the composite armor matters).
AIM is also missing its historical KE-W A2 shell (slightly worse than M829A2), and SEPv3 is missing its historical M829A3 shell (slightly better than DM53) which at least would make it feel like an upgrade in one way compared to SEP, A2, HC, etc.
3 Likes
That is really the problem with top tier tanks, there comes a point where they are mostly fantasy, since their real armor, the real penetration of bullets, etc is unknown. We can only more or less know the armor of certain older Western tanks and partly that of all Soviet tanks, since they use the same chassis and armor as tanks from the 80s and that were used quite a bit, being captured and investigated decades ago. The only doubt would be the real protection of the Relikt armor, which in the game has been given a value to balance and cover the deficiencies of the top tier Soviet tanks.
The problem isn’t that we should have to guesstimate; the problem is that Gaijin actively refuses to guesstimate in some tanks…
In some tanks, they find it perfectly fine and reasonable to make well educated guesstimations;
But when it comes to the Abrams, they actively refuse to do anything because “we don’t know the exact values”, so they prefer to leave them all with 1992-level armor just not to make a reasonable guess.
5 Likes
Supposedly its twice as effective as Kontakt-5
It has always seemed curious to me that a 1987 Abrams had the same hull armor as a 2010 Abrams. Also curious, for example, is that the Challengers had so little hull armor, although in the latest versions, extra armor was added with Romor and later with composite armor to correct the lack of armor.
Because there’s no hard proof of DU in the hull. This has been debated many times.
Yeah but isn’t ROMOR-A, like Kontakt-1, only designed to be effective against HEAT rounds?
And isn’t this armour modelled in game?
Then Soviets don’t have any tank modeled after 1989 since the T-90M’s composite is from 1989. - Your post’s rationale, not my argument.
AIM already has a historical round and doesn’t need to be made 12.0.
1 Like