Yeah, the guns we have are too accurate for Russian ones with their fire rate, and not accurate enough for NATO ones. Sad state of things.
2 Likes
Yeah, but in theory that’s your issue not the tank.
If it’s an issue for the absolute majority of players, it’s a general issue. It’s like saying Aim Assist in games like CoD for console isn’t a problem because it only allows the bottom 50% of console players to have the same accuracy as the top 10% and makes even pro’s switch over.
Because in theory you could still perform better on PC. If you were super dedicated, experienced, skilled, and worked much harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8Y_FQQrDg - Bradley, M242 buchmaster
https://youtu.be/apH5-7F8UUU?si=ykWoucG3AqrRSb1E - M242, 1325 meters btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCwR_Zp7PRk - 2A72 cannon
https://youtu.be/NGCmRhRhW78?si=rDiUZ4vghT-1Z7Wr - 2A72
The old British guy from Bovington Tank Museum.
That’s not what the conversation is about.
Sure. But what can u do about it in a general balancing sense? are u gonna allow the 10% who are better to continue using those easily, or let the 90% do so? Gaijin can’t make that first choice. + the K/D isn’t like crazily in favour of Russian tanks RN, (BMPT except) so it’s fine where it is.
Simple, because Gaijin only look on fire rate. They just assume all auto cannon got same accurate, so they just ignore the real life “slow fire rate, high accurate” part
1 Like
As someone who’s played both. You alone on this one…
You makin too much sense.
As someone researching the M1 series and have M1A1AIM and owning the Leclercs, the Leclercs are better in my opinion in almost every aspect except firepower and armor.
1 Like
If you’re comparing the Heaviest Abrams to the lightest Leclerc? Sure. But the M1A2 vs Leclerc S1? The Leclerc loses.
Abrams: Survivability, Armor, Traverse Speed, Frontal Guidance Angles, Reverse Speed, Higher Bustle Rack Capacity.
Leclerc: Rearward Guidance Angle, Top Speed ?
Maybe you just like the Leclerc. But the Abrams is simply just more versatile… Tye Leclerc is heavily limited. It isn’t special now that many tanks get a 5 sec reload now (the MSC with its 6 sec reload getting beat by other MBTs even before 11.0). Maybe the Leclerc is more HE resistant? But that’s the only other extra thing I could think of. But peaking yang the Leclerc is a nightmare if they have some kinda knowledge at least.
2 Likes
It goes both ways
No, I know what happened. They hit the optics on the BV and made it blind. Then they hit the turret control and it went all disco.
Call it what you want, the 25mm killed that tank, mobility and unusable is still a kill. Even Russians who use that crap know its crap. Thier optics are like cheap foggy plexiglass, most arent even using thermal optics and even if they did they are multiple generations behind western versions.
Cope all you want…Ukraine is a parking lot of dead, burned out and busted Russian equipment you can stroll through
2 Likes
Look up vids on the BMPT firing…those 2 barrels dance like popped soda cans
1 Like
You clearly dont know what happened lol.
It was a T90M which was ambushed by TWO bradleys and FPV drones, first of all.
It was mission killed, yes, but it went on to drive off and the crew bailed before it got struck by more drones. The tank did its job and protected the crew.
Source? Russia had been using Western thermal (Thales ones), but they are making their own native thermals on par with NATO ones.
And Ukrainian, and NATO equipment.
2 Likes
Holy propaganda. Hahaha, no. Russia is struggling to make thermal on par with the 2002 Catherine-FC…
Russia imported the French Thales Catherine-FC/X thermal cameras between roughly 2005 and 2014 for use in the ESSA sights on tanks such as the T-90A and early T-72B3. After the annexation of Crimea in 2014, sanctions cut off further deliveries of French thermal cores.
As a stopgap, Russia relied on the Belarusian Peleng Sosna-U sight from about 2015 to 2022, which became standard on modernized tanks such as the T-72B3, T-80BVM and T-90M. Early Sosna-U systems used genuine Thales Catherine thermal modules, but later versions had to replace them with domestic(VOMZ) or imported substitute components due to sanctions. This led to reduced resolution, higher NETD, and generally poorer image quality compared to the original French systems.
After 2022, Russia introduced systems such as the Irbis-K in larger numbers as part of a vast effort to achieve full domestic production of thermal imagers for armored vehicles, similar in intent to earlier Agava systems. However, available specifications suggest that Irbis-K offers significantly shorter practical detection and identification ranges than the 20-year-old Catherine-FC/X. While Catherine could detect vehicle-sized targets at 10km under favorable conditions, Irbis-K appears to roughly be 3–3.5km for reliable target recognition, placing it closer to 1980s Western thermal performance than even early 2000s thermal.
If you have any reliable source confirming that the Irbis-K is not only on par but BETTER than the Catherine-FC, because that’s the prerequisite for thermal on par with NATO latest generation, then feel free to post it.
3 Likes
From what i can tell, Russia also got the license to manufacture the Catherine-XP in 2011 as per Rosoboronexport.
The Catherine FC (Compact) operates in the 8-12 mu spectral band, weighs less than 5.5 kg.
The Catherine XP (Extended Performance) is supposedly a more modern, compact high-performance imager (less than 3 kg) designed for high-resolution imagery and increased range over older models. The XP variant “offers superior image processing and extended detection capabilities”, as seen in its deployment on platforms like the Crotale NG.
That was introduced in 2012, but mass produced past 2016.
I was wrong, not spreading propaganda. Lighten up a little 👍
From what I can see, theres a difference between IDENTIFICATION range, RECOGNITION RANGE and DETECTION RANGE. The Catherine FC/X can DETECT targets (tanks in this case) in Wide Field-of-View (WFOV) at a max of 4km vs. 11km in Narrow Field-of-View (NFOV). So, it can tell SOMETHING is there at 4 or 11km
it can RECOGNISE targets (tanks) at 4.5km in NFOV. (Oh, thats a tank, NOT a car/bus/truck)
it can IDENTIFY in NFOV at 2.5km. (Oh, that IS a T-72/80/90, NOT an Abrams/Leopard)
This doesn’t include the teleconverter btw.
Info for the Irbis-K is vague as I cannot find any source differentiating its identification ranges/detection ranges/recognition ranges, using WFOV OR NFOV. All I can find is the stated 3.2km IDENTIFICATION range for TANKS. So we know it can discern a tank from a truck at 3.2km.
I did find another sight, the Agat-MDT (commanders thermal sight), which has a 2.5km detection range but, when used in tandem with the Irbis-K, allows for them to ‘see’ out to 4.5km (either detection, identification or recognition range).
So from what i have seen, i can say that the Irbis-K alone is NOT better than the FC/X at RECOGNISING targets, but in tandem with the Agat-MDT, it COULD be. If you could please find any source disproving me or any additional info, please do so.
2 Likes
You were the one fed propaganda. Russia has started production of their own thermal imagers for a bit now.
3 Likes
Dont disagree its a graveyard and yes tons of western crap laying around. Abrams, Leopards Challengers but lets be honest here…the vast majority of videos you see on soviet armor hits is a turret flying 200 ft into the air not to mention quantity destroyed in astronomical. Massive catastrophic failures. Ok you can argue that was the design and they knew, no doubt the jack in the box has been a known issue since at least T64 but looking at the western equipment it doesnt jack in the box. The Abrams had vented via blow off panels as designed. Rest were just knocked out but not thrown 1km.
Point is, a Russian tank is more likely to go nuclear when hit than any other tank due to the autoloader so wtf is war thunder trying to pretend they are some kind of invincible monster?
As far as optics, well there is some rusted metal sitting at 73E in Iraq that is a direct consequence of shit optics on soviet armor. Western tanks could out “see” soviet era tanks and decimated them. I am not going to sit and argue over x y or z but its a fairly common fact soviet era tanks did not have optics to the quality of western tanks.
The French Thales was a more recent thing on later tanks until the export sanction in 2014. They made their own called PNM-T sight but recently have gone to the old POS sight 1PN96MT-02 due to shortages on the electronics tech used in the PNM-T. So do they have comparable tech?? Possibly but they cant produce it to the levels needs to majority have shit optics
1 Like