And? You can defeat Soviet mbts without era with DM33 by aimin in literally center of mass (actually their CoM is their weakspot, but okay). Whats your point?
1 Like
Lets ignore the fact projectiles deviate in real life and can strike completely different parts of a vehicle even if you’re aiming centre mass…
Sigh, you’re clearly uneducated on this.
You literally can pen soviet MBTs frontally in their UFP without ERA/ Not only in weak spots.
Whats your point again?
1 Like
Sure, show me DM33 penetrating T-72Bs glacis without aiming for the weakpoints. Round developed to defeat this MBT btw, which according to the Project Manager of the Leopard 2 did so without problems, yada yada yada.
I’ll wait.
Btw, Hirosava already completely changed the goalpost away from the calculations that Conraire and Sombralix performed @CyrusJackson :DD
This has been talked to death already. A tailless Ka-50/52 doesn’t rotate around and fly like it’s nothing. It’s limping back to base, if it can even reach its FOB.
Russian website talking about that years ago. The man who wrote the article in question had visited the factory in Nizhny Novgorod and talked with the engineers there. Yes, the article was in Russian(I can speak and understand a bit of the language. I find it interesting to roam around the Russian part of the web to see what’s up on the other side). Worth noting the article mentioned a drop in quality by like 10 pixels so nothing too crazy. No idea what happened to the guy since the war began.
Anyway, feel free to research a bit about the Irbis-K, this is the domestic FCS complex that replaced the Sosna-U. The PNM-T(which is the actual thermal camera part of the Irbis-K) is quite simply a domestic copy of the Catherine Thermal after France stopped exporting them to Russia.(The Sosna-U is using the imported Catherine thermal) So the BVM has NO reason to have 3rd generation thermal in War Thunder. And neither does any of their vehicles, which include the Tunguska, the Sprut, the Pantsir, and the 2S38.
The Catherine is a 2000 thermal camera and was always advertised as a 2nd generation thermal.
Because you brought another thing.
By his assumptions.
:(
and I walked right into it too.
1 Like
He’s not got a clue and I think he’s just arguing for the sake of arguing by this point.
Once you work on that basis, annoying things like truth and facts tend to go by the wayside. He has his little Russian worldview and no amount of T-72/T-80 turrets going weeeeeeeee! into orbit will change that.
I can only assume he’s had his head stuck in a plant pot since Feb 2022. It would actually explain quite a bit…
2 Likes
I mean it’s no secret russians import french thermals, even made quite the scandal in france in 2022… Thales got quite a bit in trouble for that…
Here some article in french, this article mentions thermal cameras Thales admitted livering to russia up to 2019 :
Here, line 8 of paragraph 2 of this article : “Appelé “Catherine”, le système de caméra coûterait plusieurs centaines de milliers d’euros.”, which you could translate by “Called “Catherine”, this camera system costs several hundreds of thousand euros”
So yeah, this backs @CyrusJackson claim about t-80 BVM’s thermals being gen 2
2 Likes
Because Leo 2 turrets are not on the Moon…
A single tank? Have you played War Thunder?
“In the 80s, the new reactive armour (Kontakt 5) was introduced, which, due to the plate thickness (composite KE protection), as well as the new explosives (K-5) - for the first time, a protective effect against KE ammunition was demonstrated”.
It literally cannot get more explicity than that. They’re basically saying it was only thanks to Kontakt-5 that T-72B could survive a hit with the munitions of the time (DM13/23/33), this only aids the what I stated earlier, Sombralix and Conraire are correct, Gaijin is wrong in their implementation of Soviet/Russian composites.
1 Like
On one side, the project manager who worked on the ammunition, on the other, someone who never worked on it, nor on the armor it’s supposed to defeat.
Same thing for igla / mistral situation. Project manager claims it can do 30G, but some dev (missile specialist mind you) decides it can’t cause, and i quote “igla can only do 10G”
1 Like
Much more than that, it was the guy leading the entire Leopard 2 project - Paul Werner Krapke. He had access to all the information, much more than I can provide here ever. If he says it can, it simply can. No buts.
2 Likes
Eh… Your quote literally saying differen thing. That K-5 is effective in defeating KE ammo. And thats all. Not that T-72B could be defeated by DM-13/23/33. Nowhere on that page this was stated.
Now you’re just strawmanning this lol. You’re hopeless.
1 Like
Well, if your own quotes are strawmans… Im literally working with your own quotes. With what you said
Don’t trust source X, it’s surely false.
Here’s a picture from source Y stating different things.
Pls believe source Y, just because I think (and am probably biased about it) it’s legit
Lmao okay.
2 Likes
In future updates for higher BR vehicles.
Just as lolpen APFSDS against Object 279 is at 9.3.
Just as lolpen against Abrams is at 10.7 - 11.3.
Coolio. In original German the plate is described as “tank armour” (composite in other words) and explosive as “ERA”. Meaning was lost in the translation, but it can still be extrapolated from the machine translation.
That’s still just supporting evidence though, and you still haven’t explained at all how Sombralix or Conraire were wrong, yet you pretend to be the Mr. KnowItAll.
FYI:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/712796105741697064/819949236891942962/unknown.png
1 Like