That is the issue there is no way to establish an integrated network with everything having similar short range.
How long did it take to dismantle the Iraqi A2AD again? Also looking at recent events even modern Russian systems aren’t doing to well either considering repeated strikes around Crimea.
also ordnance like AGM-88G aren’t going to let mobile systems escape either.
NATO CAS in game are missing a number of significant items like the;
JSOW, JDAM, APKWS II, JAGM, SLAM / SLAM-ER, Walleye II / Walleye ERDL, AGM-144, CBU-105, CBU-87, CBU-100, GBU-130 w/ AXQ-14, AGM-65 w/ HE warhead, HE warheads on 2.75 & 5" rockets, AGM45 / -78 / -88. and many, many more. let alone non ordnance stores like targeting pods.
It really is curious that so much is missing and that practically every single airframe is anachronistic in so many ways, and even then are missing ordnance for balancing purposes even if they are already implemented on later aircraft.
Depend on range Relik should defeat DM53 if range are far enough when the round loses kinetic energy too close i think DM53 can defeat it because take full energy very simple science like shooting a crossbow you shoot crossbow at close range, they can penetrate even modern body armor but further range it might not achieve that (this non bias fact its simple science) also range should be use as balance in the game too
This pesto guy probably never opened a book on Desert Storm. Otherwise he would know Baghdad was the second most protected city in the world with AA just behind Moscow. And yup, still only took a month to decimate the Iraqi army.
Russia in War Thunder has a Pantsir that started production in 2012. That’s why they’re not suffering. It’s easy enough to fight 90s planes with a 2012 AA truck. NATO could equally get stuff like NASAM to entirely close the airspace.
Okay, but how does that stack up against the K-5 canister (what’s left after the explosive portion) plus the composite armor and the hull itself?
If the ERA does not explode, the only thing providing protection is the steel container… (refer to some of the older threads on the ‘fixed’ protection of T-series MBTs by @Sombralix and just add the steel container of K-5 to that, or putting it in simpler terms - it would pass through at really, reallyyyyy far ranges).
If the ERA does explode, if will affect the frontal section the most, that’s where the ‘segmented’ tips are. Under normal circumstances they would act like low ratio APFSDS precursors clearing the path for the “main segment”, i.e; basically just do what KEP is made to - penetrate the target. Under the “abnormal” circumstances (where ERA explodes due to the failure of the main mechanism), those will be sacrifaced (take on the brunt of the explosion as well as the flyer plate) in order to allow the main segment to pass through the ERA unscathed.
If you’re too tired or too lazy to read all of this, here’s the tl;dr - it will penetrate with zero problems.
About a day/day and a half. And every target was known, flights were flown from almost every direction, hundreds of planes at a time, completely schemed to deplete a system that was mostly S-125’s/S-200’s. Iraq had to keep their radars on to try to engage, and failed. From AH-64’s all the way up to B-52’s, or even cruise missiles from the different naval platforms. No one has ever seen coordinated fire like that, and it took a MASSIVE Western effort to do that. It would be quite hard to repeat that in the future.
Meanwhile, Russia only neutralized 85%+ of Ukraine’s AD on day 1, and has struggled to finish it off since, given that the US/NATO runs ISR flights for them, and helps them maintain the smallest signature possible the whole time. All is fair in love and war. Ukraine mostly had S-300’s, and has the remnants of an integrated system that could coordinate that to Buk and Tor all the way down to Strela-10/Tunguska. Iraq =/=Ukraine.
100% true. The AD missile vs fancy multimillion dollar jet issue becomes inversed when it’s $200,000 missile vs $200 dollar drone. AD isn’t the winner here either. Overwhelming systems is something you can’t prevent easily, if at all.
This goes both ways, look at the Geran and Kalibrs and what they did last year, and are starting again. Western AD is not technologically superior. But even if we pretend that it is, we can’t deny that Western industry cannot outpace Russian suicide drone production, especially not when paired with other missiles.
I don’t know enough about the G to agree or disagree, but I’d be willing to take my chances in a Pantsir etc. Turn off radar and run? Works for me.
This is all fine. I have no idea, without looking them up, exactly what all of these are. But I know a few, and I’ll tell you with the standoff weaponry, Gaijin will need to re-write the code for that, and they’ll also need to balance it for gameplay too. You just might not see that stuff in GRB. Case in point, the Kh-29TD has a “35km range” but it only has 70 seconds of guidance time before it self destructs (not sure if they do that in real life) and you can only target things from 17km and closer anyways.
Homie, I grew up on Wings over the Gulf. In respect to trying to stay on topic, read my spoiler above.
NASAMs is not that great, IRIS-T would be better. Also, NASAM’s would “entirely close the airspace” as good as any other unit. I.e. it will be a pain in the ass, but defeatable. I don’t really think ground launched 120’s are that impressive tbh.
If either were introduced, they’d need to either rework the Pantsir to fix the radar and guidance, or give Russian the TOR-M2.
Nope, I gotcha. I’m mostly wondering how it would work in a dynamic game, not with static targets, like hitting a target on the move at an extreme angle, velocity related spalling, what internal modules it might hit.
It should have few problems performing its role unless the angle gets way too high (think as high as the upper plates of tanks like Leopard 2 or M1), since then there’s a possibility of it shattering.
Yes you are. Insinuating that Lockheed and Raytheon are sponsoring documentaries is why people think Russian tanks blow their turrets. I guess they thought they would really sell more Abrams by showing the average History Channel viewer the simple fact that Russian tanks often lose their turret when blown up. Which happens a lot. XD
That is some tinfoil grade lunacy right there.
Your point that you made up? I watched a documentary about the Battle of 73 Easting, from Greatest Tank Battles, and they accurately stated that all modern Russian tanks store their ammo in hull, which causes the turret to blow off when the ammo is hit and detonates. They never said every Russian tank will throw its turret when hit. Raytheon and Honeywell had nothing to do with the series this documentary was from. In fact, it was a Canadian program.
More than half of the Russian autoloader MBTs killed in Ukraine have blown their turrets off. Like, actually blown off. Where you can see inside the crew compartment through holes other than the hatches. Unlike that Chally that you and your friends cope about.
More than half of the time is consistent. Russian tanks consistently self-destruct. Plenty of videos of Javelins killing Russian tanks. This one example of a super tank you claim, with no evidence, doesn’t refute the many documented Javelin kills and MANY, MANY dead Russian tanks. The consistent theme over decades of conflict show that Russian tanks blow up often and easily. The data shows that Russian countermeasures have still resulted in many, many destroyed tanks. There are multiple videos, easy to find, showing Javelins leading to tossed turrets.
NATO tanks came out on top in Iraq when facing Soviet/Russian armor. Both times. The Syrians and Russians still lost WAY more tanks in LIC in Syria than the US, UK, Saudi, Turkey, etc. did over a longer period of combat with NATO tanks. From the Middle East to Europe, Soviet/Russian armor is killed wholesale. Export models, non-export models. Crewed by non-Russians, crewed by Russians. Thousands of examples to choose from. :)
So what ever “serious flaws” you think Western MBTs have, none have led to them being killed wholesale over and over again like the Russian MBTs. Russian MBTs also have terrible gun depression, ammunition design extremely limited by the autoloader, said autoloader that leads to Russian tanks exploding when the ammo is hit. They are cramped, which leads to problems for the crew over long periods of operation. I guess it isn’t a problem when you expect your tank to die in short order, though.
Since the Gulf War, Russian tanks have been killed wholesale when facing Western equipment. When the T-72 stopped having generational advantages over its opponents (composite armor, modern APFSDS, etc.) they have been destroyed easily and often. Funnier, the actual Russian tanks piloted by actual Russians are being killed even harder by a nation that isn’t even a NATO member, and until very recently was relying on old T-64s and dated ammunition with the ATGM hand-me-downs from expiring stockpiles of Western nations.
Obama was right when he said Russia is a regional power. Even that claim is questionable at this point. If Russia didn’t have nukes, they would have no real ability to influence their neighbors. Russia is now relying on North Korea for help. Let that sink in.
Idk, its some next level cope here. There were even pictures shown already, where its clearly seen, that turret is taken out of its turret ring.
This quote literally summarise everything really well.
Chauvinism towards ukrainians (Uh, they are not NATO, that means they are worse than them, not like they can be smarter or on par)
Not knowing about actual vehicles. T-64 versions, that Ukraine fielded were somewhere on par with quite big chunk of russian ones (such as T-72B, 80B/BV e.t.c). And they had more than enough T-72s, T-80s
Not knowing about actual arms (Ukraine not only relies on "Old expiring western ATGMS). They had their own ATGMs Stugna, that prooved them as good and reliable weapon.
Yet, for some reason, US is obsessed with “questionably regional power”.
And yeah, North Korea has big stockpile of ammo, that can be used with russian equipment. So why it something bad?
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Guess you can’t cope with the fact that Ukraine managed to leverage old T-64 and limits on ammo constraints to deny Russia the victory they claimed was inevitable. XD
I never once said anything about Ukraine not being good enough or smart enough. Your words. Not mine. But their equipment has not been brought up to NATO standards. Though they are moving closer to that as this goes on.
But yes, act like the Javelins and many other weapon systems that Ukraine received weren’t older models and haven’t greatly hampered Russian efforts. Your denial won’t make you right. :)
…and you try to straight face needing North Korean assistance. I thought the Russians were doing just fine in production, no? XD
You saying about putting words in your mouth, yet you again saying things, that sounds like T-64 variants are some old crap and its a mircale that they stays on par.
Oh, and i guess you are a prophet or oracle. Is war already ended? M? No? Then why you even talking about denying victory or not. Its simply not smart to say it. One US military officer already said something about 3 day and look where are we now.
And NATO standards are some miracle things, that are just better, right? Not just standartization for ease of logistics.
Maybe greatly, maybe not, but Ukraine had more than enough their own AT weaponary.
Quite funny to hear, when both Europe and USA faced problems with shortages of their own stockpiles, and Russia, supposedly, only know asked for some help with them. And yeah, supposedly. Cause me or you dont know what cooperation will happen.
I’m not insinuating it, I’m saying it outright. If you can’t read modern financial disclosure forms, if you can’t see the revolving door between titans of industry, if you can’t see the coordinated effort to create soft-power in the way of American culture, then I don’t know what to tell you. The sensationalism is real.
I’m not going to quote-pick everything you are saying, but yes generally what you are saying is correct.
And while they don’t say that, the set expectations for the audience that it does happen every time. It’s perception management. What I’m telling you is that you, me, and just about every one of us I bet, have seen at least one or two documentaries about 73 Easting. Because of this, there’s a large portion of the community that thinks, “wow, wtf. I just shot a T-72 and it didn’t skyrocket a turret 80ft into the air. Russian bias confirmed”. My biggest complaint is that this generally creates this expectation that anything less than 73 Easting the simulator is perceived as Russian bias, and there’s ZERO nuance to the fact that physics don’t work the way any of us expect. That Russian tanks don’t always, 100% of the time both detonate, AND toss a turret. So when they see reduced spalling on a BVM and the tank doesn’t detonate, it’s bias, and not code, or the actual physics of the engagement.
Idk about that exactly. It threw off half it’s frontal armor, but I digress.
True! And the Javelin has killed a ton of tanks, no disputing that. But sometimes warheads don’t detonate (hell the missiles fail to fly sometimes, funny videos to watch if you look them up), or they don’t hit ideally. What I’m saying is that based on both the US Army’s report, and some of the documentation of what’s occured in Ukraine, Javelin is not a 100% killer. In fact, according to the army, amongst other common AT weapons, is hitting targets about 19% of the time. The T-72(B3M I believe) is no super tank, it just got lucky, or was on the edge of the engagement envelope, who knows.
Against export models and Chinese variants with crews who didn’t have LRF or thermals… If you’ve seen the report on 73 Easting, the engagement was all quite fortunate for the US side.
I’m not going to argue about something I’m not prepared to research enough, to qualify any specific opinion. I will say what I’m confident of, however, and that is that the SAA vs. the FSA was much closer to a peer-to-peer conflict than 99% of US force-on-force action in Afghanistan and IRAQ. Both conflicts had LIC, but Iraq =/= Syria. Also, lest you forget, ISIS ambushed those Leo 2A4’s (Sabra II’s as well, but no one remembers those) pretty hard, and they did not cope well at all with whatever hit them.
I’d mention Yemen and the Saudi Abrams, but I’m more interested in moving on/staying on topic.
Let me know when the UK consents to letting the Chally 2’s get popped again. And tell old Joe to speed up those Abrams! I’m sure they’re 100% perfect too. Or you could acknowledge that all tanks have design flaws. Like the Chally 2 having mobility/reliability issues, or the L30 having a very short barrel life. Or how it, the Abrams, and the Leo all weigh too much for most European bridges and infrastructure. The rasputitsa will swallow those things whole. Or you could talk about the Abrams and it’s turbine powertrain. Even with the hybridization updates and new FIM’s, will still guzzle fuel at an ungodly rate, requiring an even longer and more intense supply chain, that as we’ve seen in the SMO on both sides is a liability. But yeah NATO tanks are perfect.
That’s a meme. No one likes being in a tank at all.
That’s not true either.
Funnier yet is the fact that the T-64 has been the workhorse of both sides during the ATO, and has been Ukraine’s best tank, in spite of the World Beating, God’s Perfect tank Leo 2A6 and Challenger 2.
Still is, and prefers them over the Leo 2.
Ah yes. The dated two thirds of US stockpiles of both Javelin and Stinger. Both of which are so far behind in production (they don’t even have a factory tooled for Stingers yet, and forgot how to assemble them) that they won’t be replace until the middle of the next decade. Solid move by NATO.
That’s so weird. How many times has Russia nuked Ukraine? Because they have done everything conventionally so far.
Yes. Because North Korea has a massive stockpile to utilize, between that and Iranian artillery, Russia is stockpiling for it’s next offense, you know, the one with the 500K+ guys that have been sitting back and training for over a year now. Still producing almost 2 million rounds on its own per year, and at peak Kharkov 2022 offensive levels, could’ve sustained that rate DAILY for at least another 11 and a half years.
It still takes the US a year of production to feed Ukraine’s artillery habit for a little more than a month. And since we’re bringing up desperation, how about how the US depleted it’s ENTIRE stock of 155mm’s stored in Israel for middle eastern conflicts, or went to both Egypt and South Korea for artillery as well. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Need I mention the begging and pleading that’s been done with Greece for it’s S-300, or for Cyprus’s T-80’s?
What does the West have? Germany had about 21,000 rounds of 155mm left. But I’m sure they’d only need three days of modest Ukrainian levels of consumption to beat Russia, right? Along with half that fleet of Puma’s and Leo 2’s that are so far deferred on maintenance, they’ll never see the light of combat (that extends to the Leclerc 2 as well)
They’ve never said that. They perhaps implied it, as they admitted this conflict will determine Russia’s existence.
They weren’t, and a lot of US units had stand-down orders to surrender their weaponry to be sent to Ukraine. Let alone the GMLRS stocks which are so depleted, US training disappeared in 2022, and is a shell of itself in 2023. But yeah, ONLY the oldest stuff. Still plenty at home. That’s why we started sending cluster munitions while Germany sent smoke shells!
They are, for sustaining what they burn through on a daily basis. Now Russia is exchanging support for North Korean infrastructure, security, and technology exchange (ICBM’s etc.) for some great artillery shells. It’s a win-win for Russia, and will end with North Korea being able to reach the entire US with nuclear weapons now. So good job US, glad they extended this horrible conflict.
Funny how this derailed into Ukraine war rambling, also I would say NATO MBTs are reasonably armoured in game, just that their main strength is the turret armor (which doesn’t matter much when everyone fights in city streets and everyone just goes for hull/turret neck and of course gun breach).
I guess irl Nato armor isn’t as bad. A while back I stumbled over this. Its usually hard to get this kind of battlefield infos. But this one seems ok, its from a reliable news agency, showing the visit of a french and a german MP at the frontlines. They came together with a tank crew, which showed them this missile hit. The source where I got this from claimed it to be a Kornet hit, but in this clip they just say: ‘Panzerabwehrlenkwaffe’, which means ‘anti-tank guided weapon’. Ingame any Vikhr, Ataka, Kornet and whatever immeadetly kils the tank if it hits the turret side.
…yeah…you realize Russia threatening nuclear responses is why the West has been showing restraint in support for Ukraine? Don’t know why at this point. Considering “superior Russian air defence” has resulted in dead S-400s and their rapid nuclear response/strategic air assets at Engels air base are now covered in tires to protect them from drones. That’s got to do wonders for their response time.
You conspiracies about Raytheon bribing the History Channel are still very silly.
The reason Ukraine is still using T-64s is because that’s what they have. They don’t have the ammo, parts, experienced crews and maintenance infrastructure in place for foreign vehicles they receive rarely and without guarantee. If you are trying to claim they prefer them, there are plenty of videos and interviews that directly refute your claim.
But yes, it’s important the West try not intimidate Russia too hard, because as shown in this conflict, given any chance to make the dumbest and worst decision possible, Russia will double down on it. The only one prolonging this conflict is Russia. They could leave and honor Ukraine’s international boundaries that they acknowledged when they made security agreements by signing the Budapest Memorandum. You know, the agreement that Ukraine would give up its nukes and Russia promised they wouldn’t attack them?
But seriously, you trying to say Syrian rebels is closer to peer-to-peer while trying to rationalize Russian equipment dying wholesale yet again is probably the top cope I’ve seen. The pattern and reality is visible.