Jump to content

Richardguy

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richardguy

  1. All of this, to be frank, makes playing Instant Action missions pretty miserable compared to how it used to be. I know we're not supposed to be getting hit. The armor is not a totally reliable shield, but surviving IA missions requires the ability to make accurate hits very rapidly on moving targets, aggressive berm drills, and good placement of supporting fires. The 100% probability, as noted by @Captain_Colossus, makes these scenarios just brutal to play as you can do nothing but retreat and twiddle your thumbs while in a turret-down position and take note of the increasing number of vehicles bearing down on you.
  2. @Ssnake Just out of curiosity what is going on with the Abrams family losing gun stabilization for 60 seconds after a HEAT/HE impact? Noticed this in other tanks too but even taking a non-penetrating hit from a PG-15 is causing a loss of gun stabilization which totally fries the traverse until I set the system to emergency mode.
  3. Having a lot of really annoying pathfinding issues with other tanks in my unit. Driving along the forests is a major pain. Not sure how the AI manages to get along.
  4. Thanks, I tried Steven Zaloga's books, and as I mentioned in the original posts he thinks the KE protection went up to 600mm on the M1A1 from 470 on the base M1. I'm not sure where else to go now.
  5. I'm sorry about the clusterfuck that has become this thread. All I wanted to know is - Did the M1A1 get the BRL-2 Composite in the hull? If not, which tank before the M1A2 SEP received improved hull armor over the base M1?
  6. Is it though? As I understand it there isn't a single remaining M1 or M1IP, and no M1A1 with the original armor package in the active US inventory (only FEPs slated for divestment and SAs for the National Guard). There shouldn't even be that many un-upgraded M1A1s in export use either.
  7. You should find a source that agrees and correct the wikipedia page as it says that the HA used gen 1 armor, the HC and M1A2 used gen 2 DU, and the M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEP all used gen 3 DU
  8. I am rather confused about the armor packages given to each variant of the M1 prior to the adoption of the M1A2 (so we're talking about each Abrams variant from the M1 up to and including the M1A1 HC) It is my understanding that each variant listed had an armor package as follows: M1 (1979): First gen Chobham/composite, 470mm/650mm KE/HEAT on hull and turret - per Steven Zaloga and USSR intelligence estimates M1IP (1984): Increased turret thickness, now 600mm KE/1100mm HEAT on turret - SB wiki was only available estimate, hull thickness remains same M1A1 (1985): Several sources here differ. The official wikipedia page mentions a BRL-2 Composite armor array for the hull, and Zaloga (M1A2 MBT, 1993-2018) gives his estimate of M1A1 hull thickness at 600mm KE for the hull and 700mm HEAT. SB Wiki claims effectively same as M1 1978. In other words the M1A1 retained the turret thickness of the M1IP but gained some hull thickness. M1A1 HA/HC (1987): Again some differences in the source. The official wikipedia page does not mention an increase in hull thickness over the M1A1, only turret thickness through the addition of DU inserts. But the SB Wiki claims the same driver's plate hull thickness as the M1, but considerably increased protection near the sides thanks to the armored fuel tanks surrounding the driver. Zaloga seems to think the turret estimates of both SB Wiki and Wikipedia are accurate but thinks the minimum thickness on the hull should be 600/700 KE/HEAT. Theoretically the M1A1 HC should have better protection than the HA as it used gen 2 DU inserts on the turret, similar to the M1A2. So several "sources" (read: random people) seem to think the M1 series did not receive any increase to its hull armor from the M1 until the M1A2 SEPv1. All sources - SB Wiki, Zaloga, Wikipedia, and a few others - seem to agree there was an increase of armor to defeat projectiles like 3BM42 sometime between 1979 and 1997 but there seems to be a disagreement on which tank received this armor increase. Any reading or links GREATLY appreciated. Thanks.
  9. Hi no, that's not what I was asking. It's to ask the source or material behind the 35mm penetration given to the M792 round in-game to change something in a user mod in another game.
  10. Hi @Ssnake I read the posts you wrote in response to my earlier questions and I appreciate that. I do have another question regarding the penetration value given for the 25mm Bushmaster's HE round in SB Pro PE. I'm asking for some changes to be made in a user mod in a game featuring the Bradley and in its current state the M792 round is being treated as an "explode on contact" projectile, with almost no effect against anything with a sliver of armor, including the BRDM-2 and armored technicals. The mod creator is happy to change these values if I can find a source but at the moment I can only find marketing material for my claims. Do you have any reading available for this cartridge? Fully understand if it's all classified and can't be touched. Thanks, Richard.
  11. Can we expect newer models of the Aybrams and the newer ammunition to counter them as well? Plans in the near future or sooner out? Thanks a bunch for that update.
  12. Well, uh, I was kind of hoping to see the M1A2C/D due to their improved optics, better ammunition (M892A4, M1147) APS, and armor improvements as well as the fact that they'd be what would be fighting the Armata if they were ever actually serially produced. As well as, of course, the T-72B3/T-90M/Etc. Some of the Challenger and Leo upgrades would also be interesting to see as well as the very numerous IFV variants that have popped up since 1990. And I'm not Italian or anything but I would be interested to see how the Centauro 2 plays. Thanks. @Ssnake
  13. Hi, I don't visit these forums regularly; I created an account in 2015 out of curiosity when I first began purchasing time-limited licenses to play every so often. I've tried searching the answer via google as well as the forums and not found one that really solves this for me. Why does the vehicle/unit/ammo lineup largely end at 2005? I understand that there are many potential reasons. Information of any source and any real credibility is pretty limited on newer vehicles. Militaries aren't likely to submit accurate information regarding their vehicle's capabilities, even if they're mostly retired. And the dev team doesn't have a big incentive to keep making newer vehicles considering the sheer amount of hours, resources and more hours that have to go into representing and modelling these things. But I won't say I'm not a little confused and disappointed with how little the content lineup has changed in 7 years time. The latest (production) tank available in Pro PE is the T-90S for Russia (2005), followed right behind by the Leopard 2A6, with the M1A2 SEPV1 (1998) and Challenger 2 trailing well behind. The T-14 and T-15 Armata vehicles were introduced recently, which, for me, caused some head scratching; as these vehicles are still not in serial production as I type this, with estimates of actual production for the T14 being between 7 (most conservative, per Victory Day Parade sightings) and 20 (initial batch order). If it's time and resources that are in short supply, I genuinely don't get why we're seeing these, if I may describe them charitably, vaporware tanks when there are upgraded models of nearly every Western MBT that would likely require much less model work to show (later M1A2 SEP variants or even just the SEP v1 with certain "less visible" upgrades from later models, Challenger 2 upgrade packs, Leo 2A6+/7, etc). This doesn't touch Bradley, Warrior, Marder and BMP variants that are newer than the late 80s models. Again I would really just like to understand the reasons for a lack of more contemporary units and if there are plans to upgrade the ones we currently have, even if models + interiors have to remain largely the same with just "less" visible aspects changed. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...