dejawolf

On 6/16/2017 at 3:28 AM, Marko said:

No worries.

It would be interesting to see how much it would improve the T-72 firing accuracy while on the move issues.

The T-72 has a lot of upgrades available but they all have the same issues with gun depression and stabilisation.

 

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)

21 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

...unless the fewer parts have a higher likelihood of failue than the many parts combined that they may be replacing

 

p(fail) = 1-((1-p1(fail)) x (1-p2(fail)) x (1-p3(fail)) x ... x (1-pn(fail)))

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. 

On 9/24/2017 at 6:32 PM, CalAB said:

There are no mods to this sim to achieve what you’re looking for. There are skins that can be used in place of the stock ones that ship with the game and there are some texture mods for fire, smoke and other visuals but there is nothing beyond that. Damage models don’t exist in ProPE for the vehicles other than smoke and fire rising from the dead unit and missing treads and the odd upside down turret laying on the ground beside a dead AFV. 

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. 

2 hours ago, Grenny said:

 Its attached to the turret ring, and you have a reference marker that is attached to the hull's 12 o'clock position.

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? 

21 hours ago, Marko said:

The Cannon may be very accurate but unfortunately the ammunition used by the CR-2 has not kep up with smoothbore ammunition development.

The current AP round may have trouble with the frontal armour of the newer T types and would certainly have trouble penetrating modern western designs 

The UK MOD are idiots they very penny wise and very pound stupid. had they fitted a smooth bore in the first place the CR-2 would have been a far more effective platform.

And could have stayed in service far longer.

They could have bought or shared the development costs for German and US 120mm  ammo designs.  

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. 

1 minute ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

I have in mind that it  was an L23 APFSDST on a T62

The CR1 was part of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 11B (that was also my callsign when i was Sgt)

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

2 minutes ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

 Did you know that the CR1 with his outdated shitty riffled gun has the tank to tank kill distance record? 5100m or 3 miles...  not so bad...

 

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. 

On 5/6/2017 at 10:06 AM, EasyE said:

 

Yes sorry typo, 3BM-32 is how it should have read, both the 32 seemed to have had a DOI in the mid 1980s but not reached any real distribution until the very late 1980s. It appears that a few different methods for manufacturing the rod were being run.. Uranium and tungsten are actually were  very quirky things to alloy and manufacture, with it being very difficult and expensive to achieve uniform tensile strength in a high LD  alloy rod because of fracturing during fabrication and heat treating of the materials. The 3BM-42 being a quick solution to the problem and the 3BM-32 being another. There was no inexpensive solution to this problem available to the USSR  to mass produce longer rods until the late 1980s, where they were a decade behind the USA and Germany at this point.

 

 

I suspect that the USA didn't know this, and assumed that the USSR had worked out how to cheaply alloy heavy metal long rods with out very serious manufacturing defects. From what I can gather in available public information, the BRL-1 armor package would have been effective against the most common APFSDS steel with tungsten slug designs of early 125mm ammo like the 3BM-26, with the NERA array breaking apart, yawing and causing misalignment the interior components to then fail against the backing compoenents. The rush to introduce 3 armor packages a little over 8 years suggest to me that this was the case.   

 

On another note, the USA and Germany conducted a great deal of research in the late 1980s on vastly improve the tensile and yield strength of heavy metal alloys. In some cases gaining improvements of 300-400% through some methods that caused  dissolution uniform recrystallization of ultra fine powders of various metals mixed with the main heavy metal. I suspect this may be one of the ways the M829A2 was improved over the M829A1. It could also be a way of improving the heavy metal alloys in armor packages such as HAP-2 and Burlington.

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. 

On 5/1/2017 at 10:40 PM, EasyE said:

 

I would suspect this is the case. The American defense industry since the 1980s has a rather large track of trying to provide a 95% solution when a 75% would be sufficient. When you have the money to spend I suppose. Much easier when you have a greatly inflated threat. IIRC The HAP on the M1A1 Abrams was a top funding priority and received billions in the early 1980s because it was felt that a new Russian tank with a 135mm gun firing a mono-block APFSDS was perceived to be just around the corner. The reality was that most tanks in the USSR would be shooting sheathed and segmented APFSDS until about 1988 when the 3bm-42 reached wide distribution to front line units, its self falling far short of what was needed.

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+. 

22 hours ago, 3r22r said:

Thanks for the replies. I forgot to add that the CV90DK engaged and defeated T-72M2 a 1000 meters from the side ( big surprise! ) head on is no contest of course unless you shoot the tracks. I once held a 30mm dummy round from a A-10 Warthog and I can imagin what damage the can cause, probably why we ran like hell for cover when 2 of the flew over my infantry company in Germany (M-113).  

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

1 minute ago, Grenny said:

Never say this dirty word again! When a defence official or industry say "modular" ...you can shout  "Bullsh't!!" right then

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

On 3/12/2017 at 3:49 AM, DK-DDAM said:

well at least the engine and hull is gonna be german otherwise wed see alot of reversing german tanks.

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.

On 2/21/2017 at 4:44 PM, Hedgehog said:

Khalid = what Chieftain SHOULD have been

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

On 2/21/2017 at 10:19 PM, Damian90 said:

There is only one drawing of the XM91.

 

looks a lot like leclerc autoloader actually.