The SEP and SEPv2 are still incredibly solid tanks for their BR (well all Abrams are, but focusing on these 2). So specifically buffing them because of the existence of 1 vehicle, that every other nation also struggles against, is stupid.
1 Like
No, -A4 was (as part of the FCS program) to go alongside M1147 & M1111 as to provide KE armor defeat capability at short ranges (and low cost) that are unsuitable for the use of the MRM (GL-ATGMs)
Its also possible that due to the inclusion of the datalink on the stub base of the round a kinetic precursor could be included to cause ERA to action early, leaving the rest of the penetrator to penetrate without being effected. and it’s not solely there for better measuring the temperature of the propellant as to better calculate the resultant MV of the projectile.
1 Like
Absolute cope.
And there really aren’t many assumptions here, at least not if you actually look at the sources I provided. Here are the proven facts, laid out clearly:
1992: The DoD patents a Relikt-type ERA (double-action/flyer design).
1999: The DoD is aware that Russia is actively developing novel ERA.
2000: The DoD patents countermeasures specifically designed to defeat Relikt-type ERA.
2000: M829A3 program requirements include upcoming threats.
2003: The M829A3 is finalized for production, featuring a design closely aligned with those countermeasures.
2006: As anticipated years earlier, Relikt enters production.
Taken together, the most logical conclusion is straightforward: M829A3 was developed specifically to counter upcoming ERAs like Relikt, an ERA the DoD already understood in both function and how to counter.
If someone still can’t connect those dots, that’s less an issue of interpretation and more one of unwillingness to follow the clear evidence.
Lol. So the US knew how it worked since 1992, knew how to defeat it since 2000, and you think M829A4(2014) is a maybe against Relikt? Stop consuming propaganda.
3 Likes
The more you know…
and all of it is on you…
Did they defeated it? I asked to show us a fact, proof… there is none. Only “fan” made simulations, that doesnt mean much. We have no actual real world data… it’s “the schrodinger’s cat” situation. So I guess I’m not the one “consuming propaganda”, but you.
I literally gave you a US Army patent(that you obviously didn’t consult) proving the US understood how to defeat Relikt in 2000. It mentions the two flyer plate design that Relikt uses. The patent is confident that a breakaway single tip design(M829A3) is enough to pierce through both flyer plates as long as it’s at least 9-15% of the total sabot because Relikt design applies most of its force there.
We know from the ATK KE-W patent that the M829A3 penetrator is 630mm long with a 100mm breakway tip so exactly 15.87% sacrificial tip.
Must be a coincidence/s.
This is real-world data from laboratories and engineers. You just don’t want to accept the information because it breaks some idea of Russian superiority in your head or something?
7 Likes
Rather than asking for a new round, which let’s face it the game engine more than likely can’t even support anti-era tips, it would make more sense for gaijin to actually get off their arses and fix how era currently works.
Era is a flat penetration reduction in game, with no accounting for angles or anything. This means that it doesn’t matter if you hit it directly at the side, or more from the front or back, the kinetic penetration reduction is the same. Therefore, a round has to go through the era, then the side armour, then the spall liner. It’s no wonder the sides of later Russian tanks eat shells.
So the actual fix is for gaijin to actually do some work and fix that, anything else is a band aid on a sucking chest wound.
5 Likes
Patent of a ERA, similar in apearence to “Relict”, doesnt mean, they ware able to defeat Relict in 2000
data from laboratories ≠ real-world data
Nobody, but you talk about “Russian superiority” and “eating propaganda”, at anyone that disagree with your assumptions. And No, I don’t accept claims without prove (not that it matter in the grand scheme of things, I’m not dev after all). End of story.
Walks into the Russian bias topic
→ sees complaint only offers the solution to the US exclusively, buff them.
→ instantly get confused
→ Eventually get railed between Russians and Americans if buff drops.
7 Likes
Do you use kh-38MT? yes or no? if no do you support it’s addition? yes or no?
Gues what boi half of russkies tech in this game acts like what you said.
6 Likes
Where is the connection?
Care to elaborate?
Yes. Brochure proof of kh-38mt doing what it does… they take it for granted…
Now even from only a “brochure” some usa tech won’t be added by devs like stryker reload speed… or long awaited FnF brimmstones (because it would be OP or in other cases it does not work that way end of bug report bam*) But when it comes to russian stuff in this game they get what the manufacterer states … flight path of russian fnf missiles compare that to helfires/spikes…
You could add and add more are more and only a blatant fanboy would not acknowledge it
- russian eras eating darts/atgms
- russian autoloader eating darts instead of exploading
- pantsir-s1 (+ now pantsir 2, even more op)
- KH-38MT vs maverics
- object 279, is 7, pe-8, yak 9k, that soviet ship which doesn’t even exist irl
Read this post here you will have a lot of it listed.
2 Likes
Brochure + IRL use in one of the ongoing conflicts that shall not be named…
all reaload speed are redused/increased for balance reasons…
I don’t thing there is a person that is against IR FnF brimmstones (with up to max 6 in a loadout), but for the mmw, not going to happen soon, because it will be broken. And do consider the fact that other nations beside NATO also have mmw ATGMs… this will open the flud gates for a lot of BS… we dont wont that.
Nobody is against fixing the helfires/Spikes flight path… I would also and PARS in the mix.
only darts and only on the BMP-T… yeah its only a problem for 10.3-11.3 shells.
questioble… In all my experienc with USA and Germany in high tier agains T-seriers with aoutloader (or Chinise ones, because they’re the same in WT) I’ve never experience such problem.
yeah Kh is better… so is HAMMER, and AGM-84H… wow a newer, bigger missile is better then an older, smaller, what a shocker…
Again… what all of this has to do with the M829A3 beeing able to defeat Relict+armor (btw even the US Army or the manufacturer doesnt claim that) and the lack of evidence for those capabilities???
Why? Because your Kontakt tanks would be plastic and useless?
1 Like
I have no real horse in the M829A3 race, but this is some borderline braindead stuff. If anything a lot of the time data from laboratories is more reliable. The lab, and especially patents, have standards for the quality (although they aren’t always followe) while real life data can just be cherry picked.
And laboratory/test data is exactly how things get designed and made.
For example we can also just take that picture of the turretless BVM with a hole in it’s Relikt brick and consider that “data” to get relikt nerfed.
3 Likes
The problem is that there are no “laboratory/test data” of M829A3 vs Relict… the only one providing a source (here on the forum) was I think @tripod2008 and in it i was sayed, if I remember correctly “defeat 3th gen ERA”… but there ware no explanation what “3th gen ERA” means or what count as a “3th gen”, or what was used for testing.
By they’re definition, this is also a “laboratory/test data” …
but for me (regardless that in some way prove my point) I don’t accept it beouce it a huge guesswork.
Why would we need M829A3 when other 8 nations probably not gonna have it?
I really wonder why Americans needs to have the privilege to counter Russian vehicles exclusively.
Yes, russian bias meta are ass, but we need better solution than ‘gib 829a3’
1 Like
Not with that seeker.
funny how bmpt is balanced or other stuff vs non russian and how they quickly balance out western eq vs russian :)
who said anything about mmw? Why not do it like kh-38mt with it’s seeker which how it works and is interchangable STATED BY A “BROCHURE” info while others don’t get that privilege No real data about it what so ever but still they take the word fro granted which already means gaijin favors russians.
then why not do it for X years since they came out and russian get it while them don’t? What is the problem? specially after multiple reports?
Very bad aargument “i don’t have it so i denounce it” type…
while multiple more people claim they do so the balace of it is on the side of it is happening instead of not.
where is the balance then? have best spaa now have best ag missile while usa gets badly implemented Slammers …
evidence? look up you have a brochure etc but that only applies to russkies xDDDDD
you sound just like Alvis…
I wonder why hmmm oh yes i’ve got it you are a big russian main :)
Dude, you’re trying to equate an amateur simulation video made by private individuals with guesswork numbers to the Army laboratory doing controlled testing and writing black on white the precise technical requirements needed for APFSDS to defeat Relikt-type ERA.
Are you trolling? What even…
2 Likes
Not anyone say F5C should not delete ALE40
But many Russia bias enjoyer in defense of KH38
2 Likes