sure the olf f2 should have been in game since the m829a2 was introduced, that being said i dont know much about the shorad
french apfsds are complicated
There’s a lot of different names at first glance :
OFL 120 F1 (tungsten)
OFL 120 F2 (uranium)
120 OFLE F1B (tungsten)
120 OFLE F2 (uranium)
SHARD mk1 (tungsten)
SHARD mk2 (tungsten)
I’m losing myself in this mess, and idk if some sources refer to the same shell with different names or if it is indeed different ammunitions.
As for performance, good luck finding anything, only this article on SHARD states “longer rod than 120 F1 & F1B” and “increased performances by 20%”, whatever that means (if, and only IF, it refers to pen it gives around 740 @ 2000m @ 60°, give or take, so slight increase compared to DM53)
SHARD mk2 still seem to be in development, so not suitable in game anyway, but it seems it is supposed to carry more explosives for improved velocity
2 Likes
True, and sensible as a general principle: all vehicles in game should be competitive, or there’s no point having it in game. If that means they need to time-travel to have an even chance, so be it.
However, this does pose a problem for top tier, because the Russian military industrial complex is not the Soviet Union’s. At some point, true modern-day NATO vehicles will have to come, and even accounting for a fantasy interpretation of the Wunderwaffen like the Su-57 and the (out of production) T14, the issue remains that Russia will fall behind. Won’t have stuff to add like-for-like as modern day NATO equipment comes.
This is yet further proof, in my eyes, that it was the wrong decision to expand War Thunder’s scope to beyond the Korean War, and a separate branch, or game, was needed for the modern stuff. If Enlisted and War Thunder can be separate games in spite of the many common assets, the same was true for the post-Korean War stuff and the original game. Keep the engine, keep all the elements that make your life easier, but devise a bespoke system of progression, matchmaking, lineups… and maps.
Alternatively, it is further proof that nation-based matchmaking is no longer fit for purpose. The game has simply outgrown the basic infrastructure it was originally built on. Even basic philosophies, like the aformenetioned balancing of vehicles based on competitiveness, fail to apply as they should when the future of top tier is involved.
2 Likes
Because this is a game made by Russian… They try their best to against the winrate of top-tier NATO and they try deny any discussion that BVM is much more powerful than other NATO vehicles except strv122.
2 Likes
Yet the most armored MBT in War Thunder is Strv 122A & Strv 122B, not Russian.
T-80BVM uses the same exact turret as T-80B but with improved turret drive and FCS, along with ~50% ERA coverage.
T-80BVM is at best on-par with other 11.7s.
BVM has hull armor thanks to Relikt, and is the primary reason it’s 11.7
1 Like
I mean, one can make up reasons as to why things are the way they are, or you can point to something real. And thats that 6mm structural steel of the carousel doesn’t spall.
5 Likes
The words ‘Redeffect Video’ and ‘Unbiased’ should never be used in the same sentence. Unless it’s the punchline for a good joke.
*This being the YT ‘expert’ who confidently claimed that JaVeLIN iSnT EffectiVE against Russian armour. Feel free to look up on google his other various accidentally-on-purpose skewing of facts to fit his worldview. (e.g. NATO bad, grrr.)
5 Likes
Maybe i missed, but he never said that. Care to source.
This was posted pre-invasion - after various T-series turrets were separated energetically from their hulls in the first few months he rapidly took it down. Luckily the likes of NCD are around to remind him of it regularly whenever he has a new hot-take that seems to counter physics.
Nothing against the guy personally - by all means whack opinions up on the internet. However DON’T confuse opinions with facts and trying to portray the former as the latter is a major no-no in my book.
4 Likes
Heh, already kinda funny… “Russian”. He is a slavic, but not russian. Slovakian IIRC.
Idk how is there connection. And actually i dont wanna start another rotten discussion about all ammo explosions and turret poppings.
And yet he is not biased. Even if he was wrong about this thing (actually, he had another video about javelin still) - he tell things that critisize russian equipment and praises whats good in it. Same goes for western. Considering all he said - i’d better watch him, than some clearly biased and literaly working for on side, like LazerPig
1 Like
The Pig is chronically wrong too.
Until the war ends - the information space is basically a crapshoot (I think that is something all sides can agree on). The safest bet is probably to read/listen to a little bit of everything and draw your own conclusions.
Swerving back to WT - I do think NATO tanks need a good look at re: their armour protection. We’ve got things like the Abrams SEP having the same armour as the stock (unarmoured) model because reasons. Challenger 2s have NERA which should meet STANAG requirements but don’t. The Leclerc AZUR seems to be nerfed to a similar degree (NERA arrays adding bulk, adding weight but nowhere near the protection they should). We could go on…
1 Like
It’s been confirmed that hull upgrades for Abrams began in 2001, with initial deliveries in 2002.
SEPV1 was introduced in 1999. So the SEP we have is a 1999 armor kit with TUSK. Perfectly realistic as TUSK is an external package.
So we have to wait for SEPV2 before hull armor is upgraded in that regard.
Erm nope - plenty of evidence to show that SEP included the new armour outfit with *TUSK being an add-on package. SEPv2 didn’t add any additional armour because it was already there on the base SEP update - think DU and Titanium inserts.
SEP V1 doesn’t appear in documentation by the way - it is just SEP - SEP V2 - etc. Worth noting that one of the public aims of the SEP program was to improve survivability - hence the update to armour is a given.
*TUSK being similar to CR2 having the TES outfit.
See what happens when you rely on Redeffect for sourcing on NATO AFVs?
Just to add - here is one such source. Digital Abrams: The M1A2 SEP Program (defenseindustrydaily.com)
I quote ‘The M1A2 SEP is builds on the digitized M1A2 platform with an improved armor package of third generation steel-encased depleted uranium armor’
V2 is specifically mentioned further own - hence the armour outfit is a base SEP feature.
2 Likes
Well, hindsight we call SEP “SEPV1”. Back when SEP was the only SEP they could call it that.
However, SEP can mean any of the 3 service upgrades in our modern conversations.
lier. m1a2 and leo2a5 are much less armoured than BVM
2 Likes
He compeletly ignores how BMV’s hull armor is unpenetrable while having also unpenetrable turret with ERA.
He keeps claiming BVM does have 10.3 turret while ignoring it also has RELIKT Era that covers the turret and provides great protection overall.
Average Razer in nutshell.
5 Likes
and ERA overperform too sure RELIKT might about to protect form APFSDS “at longer range” and none of ERA should be able to take the round like DM53 at 10-500 meter
turret can lol pen They talking about the tanks that BS to the point that take GBU 16 directly but still alive
4 Likes
Dude, I’ve already stated the BVM has hull armor. So your statement is just flat out wrong.
BVM has hull armor thanks to Relikt, I’ve always said this and explained that’s the primary reason it’s 11.7 and not 11.0.
You’d know this if you didn’t ignore the BVM’s armor.
@ARK_BOI
DM53 was designed to defeat Kontakt 5. Relikt was designed to protect against DM53 and potentially more.
1 Like