You are saying that they made Kontakt-1 to protect them from APFSDS?
Or you trying to say, that if they were sure about their armor, they wouldnt develop KE efficiency for ERA, that they were already using anyway? Clarify what you wanna say, pls.
Just awaiting the next entry on the Bingo Card… sees a bloody big dart penetration in the front of the tank. Tank is plainly no longer in use (probably due to bloody big hole in the front).
‘Yeah but…waffle waffle…something…might have been an RPG’. You realise that makes it even WORSE?
Friendly advice. Just let it go Hirosava. You’re digging a progressively bigger hole despite plenty of evidence being thrown in your direction - from maths to physical photographic evidence to basic common sense. With every evasion, every whataboutism, every attempt to chop and change the goalposts - you are just running out of ideas now.
4 Likes
You know what I was talking about there.
Just to point it out, I never mentioned Kontakt-1; you have so that’s on you. The only ERA I had on my mind there was Kontakt-5.
The rest was self-explanatory; “why use this when we already don’t have to worry about APFSDS because our armour is sufficient?” (especially considering that Kontakt-5 offers no benefit when it comes to CE protection over Kontakt-1, and is harder to mount than it, takes up more space, leaves more gaps yada yada yada).
Everything shown up to this point was to show that neither the Soviets nor the Russian were confident in their composite armour being enough, that’s why Kontakt-5 and now Relikt exist.
What could’ve drove them to develop anti-KE ERA’s? Ah yes, Western APFSDS rounds, that in this game are useless unless you are aiming for weakpoints, barring the fact the only times Western KEP can do their job is when they’re facing vehicles ~15 years out of date, rather than the stuff they were designed to defeat… womp womp.
1 Like
Well. One argument against that particular bingo card is that each tank seem to have only 1 impact.
If the round didn’t pen, it means the crew evacuated before the enemy tank could reload (not likely), or they destroyed their opponent, but died anyway somehow ? (not likely either)
Maybe there is some context to these photos ?
Edit : I also note that the tank without turret is the one where the apfsds hole is center mass, right where the carroussel would be.
2 Likes
Quite bad photo, but its T-54 penned by 9M14P1
Looks quite similar to me.
But anyway, my first point is about not seeing actual pen (or at least photo from interior)
See post above
True - however short of tracking down every member of that battle and getting their witness statements - the photos are what we have to go on. If an otherwise working tank is vacated by it’s crew - there is usually a reason.
After all, if you were in tank that was working and undamaged - would you want to jump out into a battlefield full of bullets, arty fire and drones if you could help it? Unless you’d been hit by something that made getting out of your armoured box seem like a REALLY good idea…
1 Like
yup, fair point
No, i dont.
Then name it properly.
Mounting benefits. And anyway, if you can make your ERA APFSDS resistant - why not?
Well, BVM is kinda 15 years out of date, actually. Relikt isnt modern (72B2 is 2004-2005) and base of BVM is BV (which is from 1985)
That honestly sounds like a you problem.
Mounting benefits.
Irrelevant. K-5 needs completely new supporting elements, it cannot be just “glued” to the armour like Kontakt-1, it needs a secure mounting made from steel.
And anyway, if you can make your ERA APFSDS resistant - why not?
Costs of R&D.
Costs of refitting.
Costs of production.
Costs of storage.
Costs of maintenence.
Etc. You don’t just do stuff “cus”, you need a reason, especially when it comes to military designs.
Well, BVM is kinda 15 years out of date, actually. Relikt isnt modern (72B2 is 2004-2005) and base of BVM is BV (which is from 1985)
@Crazed_Otter Vatnik brain in bright daylight right here.
I truly admire how biased Hirosava is towards a nation they don’t even play, every strawman, every change of the goalpost, every whataboutism, they still manage to come up with an even shittier argument.
1 Like
Yes, but it easier for mass production and all that stuff.
Bruh, it literally was a joke. (And yeah, you wanna argue about age of relikt and T-80BV?)
Absolutely not. Unlike Kontakt-1, which is an explosive filler simply jammed inside a steel container, Kontakt-5 actually has a “complex” construction by comparison, because they had to make sure that the flyer plate isn’t disintergrated by the explosion, and that it can detach itself defending against a projectile, but not fall off when it’s being de/mounted.
And yeah, you wanna argue about age of relikt and T-80BV?
“How cool do you think I am? :nerd_emoji:”
I hopefully assume you’re aware that this applies to a whole lot of vehicles.
and let’s not forget the incorrectly modeled wedges on the leopard. there are two slanted thick armor plates inside to break the penetrator before it hits the armor. and that these were provided with modifier because howling to weaken them.
and that the spall liners inside the turred in the versions from A5 / 6 /pso was simply omitted. yes one has even extra more splinter effect added that also the crew die quick. what is totally unnecessary with the leopard, because the gunner, driver and the commander if one on the right spot shoots all die, since they sit behind each other …
But unlike K-5, K-1 still need to be mounted independetly. K-5 is integrated, so you making tank with pre-built ERA.
Yes, cause this literally was a joke about “date of introduction debate”.
True, if not for the fact they can be mounted on rails (and countries have done so).
Yes, cause this literally was a joke about “date of introduction debate”.
Your response to a valid point on how munitions developed to battle against a peer opponent need to fight vehicles from the previous decade or two to actually do their job, was a bad joke…
In any case, it’s gotten late. I’ll see myself off.
rheinmetal bought a t-80 from a comparative test from swedens leo2 vs t80 and made strafing tests with the dm53. penetration from all sides everywhere at 1800m
3 Likes
my team getting rolled within 5 fucking minutes of match start, this is not uncommon for russian teams
1 Like
Back to this by the way. Since we have now proven that Russian tanks have overperforming thermal and armor. Except if you’re calling Conraire wrong or a liar regarding armor, in which case, I would ask you to prove that he’s wrong with documentation or stay silent.
So tell us, what artificial nerfs is the T-80BVM subject to? Or the T-72B3 for that matter?
1 Like
This is why i bomb Russians now i only focus on how to get CAS fast as possible why do i need to fight overperforming tanks with underperforming tanks when i can just bomb them i had enough with their BS
Desert Storm 2 Electric Boogaloo? I like it. Very historical.
My options as a Brit main are a bit limited at the moment.
Shame that AGM-65s are so unreliable on the Harrier GR7 although the 9Ms are good for sneakily plinking anyone who spawns in air. The Tornado is only really good for a single tree-top high-speed bomb run - too quick to be able to select your targets with care. Even Hellfires (that most exquisite IRL of Soviet-smiting weaponry) are a bit hit-and-miss on the Apache.
Must get to work on the US tree to get some better CAS toys…