ok so let’s sum it up.
You want a realistic game, where vehicles are modelled as close as possible (including ammo right ? would be a shame to have double standards)
Buuut, APFSDS that can pen a t-80BVM on UFP would be too op and needs a new BR.
Therefore, more OP ammo has to wait cause it would cause imbalance against the BVM. Now tell me again, is the t-80 being hand held or not ?
Once again, you’re bringing absolutely nothing of value other than toxicity. Bring some actual arguments regarding Sosna and/or Irbis-K if you don’t agree with something I said. This is not a secret that Russia exported Catherine thermal and then copied it in ~2016 to not be dependent on France.
Russia was always lagging behind when it came to thermal. The Agava was already a piece of **** during the cold war and Russia’s thermal programs died in the 90s due to lack of funds. They only started recently to pour money back into it but they have 20 years to catch up on truly modern thermal systems found in the west.
or the french article that dedale posted about Thales having legal problems due to the sales.
Just pointed out the double standard you use.
And as always, instead of trying to prove me wrong, you start to ramble about me being “toxic”.
I am not suprised at all.
At that point, I’m not sure if you’re just an elaborate troll or actually serious. I truly hope it’s the former.
Sosna U uses catherine as thermal imager
They got found on captured vehicles in you know where
you missed the whole second part of his message i think
APFSDS that can lol-pen armored tanks is powerful no matter what it’s against.
3BM60 vs M1 Abrams, which is why 10.3s don’t have 3BM60.
Also Abrams, Leopard 2, etc isn’t BVM. So you’re wrong there as well.
You just want to lolpen all Leopards with OP Russian rounds.
Stop claiming all MBTs are handheld just cause they can’t be lolpenned by tanks you want to be OP & unfair, and of course unrealistic.
Realism & balance > your desire for Russian/German/American bias.
And? I still dont see where it states “72B without K-5 can be defeated by Dm-13/23/33” on that page
Yet again… Calcualtions without any source and some of participants (with some sources at least) disagreed with them anyway
nato tanks hull already get lol penned anyways
Don’t worry about leopard / abrams / ariete / leclercs players too much, it won’t change a thing. BVM’s tho ? hah, they’ll have to think instead of pressing “W”.
you’re very, and i mean VERY confused if you fail to realize i’m a ouiaboo. I mean you can litterally spot it by reading 2 of my posts.
As for your concern about lol penning a BVM, you’ll still have the turret. Welcome to the club of other fellow tanks, don’t think it would justify that much of a BR decrease. Then again, if it’s considered necessary, sure why not. I prefer having vehicles performing realistically and adjusting by BR (meaning a BVM would probably be at a lower BR than abrams, leclerc or leopard, if they were implemented correctly)
And I do, I also know the T-72B was nearly defeated by 3BM-32 (you can find that out by visiting bttk), a projectile significantly weaker than DM33 all things considered, and more on par with DM23. While it was overzaelous of me to say DM13/23 can defeat T-72B, it was more’so of a statement that before Kontakt-5 no Russian MBT was safe from a peer opponent since they all had ammunition that was more than capable of defeating them at engagement ranges (~2km’s).
Yet again… Calcualtions without any source and some of participants (with some sources at least) disagreed with them anyway
Feel free to disprove them. I’ll wait. Those participants weren’t even correcting Conraire (fx) on the armour potency at 0 deg LoS either (and Raldi is… actually nah).
No, my concern is about lolpenning ANY 11.7 tank.
Lolpenning ANY 11.7 tank via another armored tank requires a BR increase regardless.
Just cause BVM’s turret gets lolpenned, and hulls get lolpenned, doesn’t mean the entire tank gets lolpenned.
conspiracy theory proved by material evidence and investigations in a sensor industry.
not so much of a conspiracy theory if you ask me.
Consideing how cramped that thing is, yeah it pretty much means a pen shot is a kill shot. T-64a really are tasty snacks for my AMX40
if the tank lol penning everyone can itslef be lol-penned, it really does not. Remember the Ariete balancing solution back in the days ? worked pretty well imo
If it is true, you only proved that it is not realistic. You did not prove that it is bias.
Knowing Gaijin, it is just incompetency.
Prove that it is intentionally that way, and it can be called bias.
And then, you only proved about the thermals. Not the ammo, spalling, armor, or other things you guys cough up.
Ariete is the only one that can’t be fixed, which is why 2A7+ for Hungary is Italy’s option of an armored tank.
I do expect an Arete to receive SHARD in the future & be bumped up to the equivalent of 12.0.
I dont need it. They already were in that thread.
And nothing like this stated in that article anyway.
I never tried to prove there is bias. I just notice that many mismodelling tends to favor russia at top tier, that’s it. proving there is bias requires me to go in the devs head, which, suprisingly i can not do…
Ammo cook off is 15% just like most MBTs (expect for chally 2 and abrams at 50%) nothing to prove again, most people focus on it but it is to me a false problem. Except of course : why do chally and abrams have 50% instead of 15 anyway ?
As for armor, not qualified enough, just saying more modern 120mm would help going through it. I’ll read conraire and sombralix calculations and judge for myself when I have more time.
Where we disagree is spalling. A bit of metal up to 20 mm wide launched at at least several hundreds m/s by the main projectile not penning a 6mm plate requires some new laws of physics simply out of this world. If this spalling could go through that plate, more ammo would be hit, therefore making this 15% chance of ammo cook off less of a problem.
It’s like you didn’t pay attention to the things they were debating there. Because they weren’t disproving him on anything that is important to what we’re arguing about here, which is:
And nothing like this stated in that article anyway.
I love it when people just ignore 90% of the stuff you write.
Actually, maybe we need to come at this the other way.
What proof is there that Russian tank armour WILL protect against insert X NATO shell here.
For example, we’ve seen lots of modern Russian stuff being knocked out by old/legacy APFDS that are used by Uke T-64s. If an elderly Mango round can defeat Kontakt1/5/Relikt - it isn’t a massive jump to suspect that contemporary NATO munitions (munitions designed expressly with Soviet armour in mind) should be effective.
For example - Mango penetration on the lower-front of glacis plate on 72B3.
Ooo look. Another one - this time through the strongest part of the turret front.
But alas Ivan! There’s more!
Seriously - the ammunition available to Uke tankers was pretty limited (Soviet-era Mango rounds at best - possibly some of the Polish/Czech updates that came along with their donated 72 models). These three are clear examples of penetrations by such rounds BEFORE Western tank rounds were in country.
So if in the real-world - Russian frontal armour isn’t much good against Soviet-era rounds. What hope in hell would they have against modern NATO ones?
Answers on a Postcard Komrades.
I’m bumping this up. When the Russians got their hand on a Magach with M111 APFSDS, they founds out T-72A is incapable of stopping it out to 2km’s - in the game the very same tank’s armour can stop the round at pretty much a Point Blank range. They had to weld the additional HHA plate to the glacis in order to give it a chance of surviving at 800 meters, here you can do that at 500 meters without said plate!
