dejawolf

if the stab motors are more powerful, it will help. otherwise, it won't help much since T-72 gun is imbalanced.(gun tip heavy)

less parts means less parts that can break, which means less parts that needs to be kept in stock by maintenance personell, which means increased strategic reliability, because the parts are more likely to be kept in stock even if they break more often. less parts also means lower cost per part to manufacture, which means the army can buy more spare parts, which again means that the parts are more likely to be available when they break.

could be it has less parts which usually = more reliability.

1: T-72M1: nothing like doing a massed soviet assault on an unsuspecting enemy position. mowing down infantry from behind a berm with the NSV-T, the sound of the autoloader, and the fact the damn TC has no control over what you load into the cannon. want me to load HEAT? НЕТ, ИДИ НА ХУЙ! 2: M2A2 bradley with TOW-2B. it's just fun popping arian uberpanzers and sepjuices with this thing, while all they can do is sit back and curse. 3:VBIED. there's just something about successfully mission killing a tank using a skoda favorit.

that's not a damage model, that's visual modeling of damage. steel beasts isn't big on visually modeling damage, but we do have 64 different states of damage affecting the performance of the vehicle in all sorts of ways. for tanks anyways, there isn't much you can damage. in some cases in real life a dead tank might look like a live tank, save for a tiny 2cm hole somewhere in the armour.

it's a dedicated-anti-infantry city fighting vehicle. heavy allround protection makes it immune to RPGs from front and well-protected from the sides, and twin 30mm autocannons loaded with HE in a fast-spinning turret, without the limitations of turret traverse a tank would suffer makes it effective fighting threats in the city. high elevation also means it can pick off targets on rooftops. vs IFV it obviously is superior in protection, as heavy MG fire and event the most primitive RPGs can easily take them out.

ok. and what locaton is it at on the scale when the turret is at 12 o clock?

well sure, but how does it work? is it somehow attached to the turret ring? or is it attached to the hull?

i dunno if calling them pennywise is appropriate. the gun on the challenger 2 is a new one, with higher chamber pressure. challenger 1 has the L11A5, challenger 2 has the L30.

T-62 and T-55 have the same level of armour.

yes, it was a HESH round which killed a T-55...

i prefer the older separating sabot petal logo.

for the BRDM-2 AT, it's quite straightforward, but for the AT-11 on T-72B, there's some significant code hurdles.

it depends on the criterias. if cost is not a factor the "best" will differ from when it is a factor. the real question would be what is the best tank for your country if your army has a country where most engagement distances don't exceed 1000-2000m, and a ton of forests having a tank with high magnification optics, L55 barrel and FLIR thermals might just be unneccesary added cost, and even hinder the tank. for example, the swedes went for the shorter L44 because the L55 was at an increased risk of strikes from trees in wooded areas. having a more expensive tank also means you have less tanks, and numbers can be an advantage if the terrain benefits lower-tech systems. you might also want to sacrifice frontal protection for allround protection. if however your country has lots of wide open flat plains, you'd want a tank with the best optics, long barrel, and as much front protection as possible.

from what i know, the main reason for the short L/D of russian rounds, is because of the autoloader not being able to accomodate longer rounds. only with the T-90A were the russians able to use longer rounds because of a redesign of the autoloader.

3bm-42 is a sheated and segmented apfsds. 3BM32 is the monoblock DU penetrator.

what you could do is take already existing rounds with known penetration, then ask: is the DM53 longer, denser, and flies faster than the known round? if all of the above is true, then it likely has a higher penetration than that known round. there used to be values on the KEW and KEW-A1 rounds out there, but it seems like this is no longer the case. in any case, here's some blurb on the KEW-A1 http://www.gd-ots.com/download/120mm KE-W A1 APFSDS-T.pdf from this diagram, you can make the assumption that each "block" is about 200mm penetration, since M829 has a penetration of around 600mm. so KEW-A1 would have 700mm + penetration at 0 meters, and in the sub-600s at 2km. http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm DM-53 is 745mm long, projectile weighs 8.35kg with sabots, muzzle velocity is 1750m/s fired from the L55 gun, and it's tungsten. KEW-A1; length ?? projectile weight 4 kg with sabots, muzzle velocity 1740m/s and it's tungsten. from this we can make the assumption: since the DM-53 is heavier, and has a higher muzzle velocity than the KEW-A1, it's penetration power should be higher than KEW-A1. 750-850mm range is a reasonable guess.

we lost quite a few players from the transition from SB gold to SB pro PE. tank guns in PE are no longer laser accurate, and some gold players could not cope with no longer being able to first-round hit targets at 4km+.

even 25mm M919 can penetrate T-72 side, as long as the range is close, and you hit between the roadwheels.

dunno, boxer MRAV is pretty modular. the other option is a common platform like Armata.

french hyperbar engine is a quite decent engine.

at this point a modular european tank is probably the best option. then individual nations can decide what they want and don't want on their tank.

well, khalid was the intermediary step between chieftain and challenger 1 khalid deliveries started in 1981, and britain got the chally in 1983. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=594