Kev2go

Yea as did earlier leopards. But that's the idea. Mechanical ballistic computer and optical rangefinder for an earlier era.

And a M60A1 RISE Passive.

or like DCS/TBS

From what I've read most aps purpose is stricktly in ration to ground basedAnt itank Top attack missiles like the javelin etc? I've always wondered if aps would also have any affect in stopping or at least partially degrading guided muntions fired from fixed wing aircraft like agm65 maverick which travels los, or against a laser guided bomb ( which would come from "top down")

No that cannot be seriously considered a prototype. It's late 2019 not 2015 anymore. It even has an official designation. It's just finishing up finalized testing of what otherwise may as be representative of a finalized product something ready for larger scale production and army use. Considering that additional 100 t14s are to be produced and first of which are going to be entering army hands by 2020 ( ie within 1 year with) based on motions already put into play, then is not what you can seriously call a prototype. There is fine line between prototype and a final product.

A prototype by definition "is an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from" In this case within context "Concept" vehicles that do no represent a completed version or a production standard, are used for general showcasing or for testing out preliminary technologies. or functions, or expanding upon them to which the reach certain requirements, that would be acceptable what is envisioned of a production level vehicle. Vehicles that are actually representative of what would be classified as a "prototype" would be TTB, T80UM2 "black eagle" , or Chrysler XM1. ETC, So The T14 can not be consider a protype or not even really for the BTR82A . T14 is simply just a low rate production vehicle now in service. They simply have not reached mass production that was initially stated, in part due to lack of funding. In conclusion Its its understandable if you haven't modeled interiors them due to lack of accessible information, but please don't miscategorize or misrepresent these as just " prototypes"

and those under that category would be ( besides implied T15)?

just to clarify, is the T15 presented in that video just an AI vehicle or will we have a crewable one?

When it comes to aviation the fighter mafia also had this view. They lost any remaining credibility after the gulf war. They advocated for simplicity and cheap mass production over high tech and quality. There is merit to cost effectiveness but not if it sacrifices too much capability or result in outright obselete equipment. They said high tech platforms would fail the test of combat . They didnt.

but maybe these soldier were graduates of Storm-trooper academy

Ah see? Now this is the sort of response that would have been appropriate without all the unessary drama. and shows there is indeed los thickness increase and not just a nera revision with different layers or materials.

M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for how long already? M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for Yet your entire response is that of a whiny little 6 year old child....... Yes it can but not as 3ffective within aforemention former los limitations as apposed to increasing thicker los turret or going leopard route and having the bolted on armor. atop main turret This is misleading M1e1 was being tested even before m1ip was produced. Until m1 with 120mm cannon was ready it was chosen to have m1ip produced as interim Even Your own history of american tanks thread yourself determined at the end of the day m1a1 was still using Burlington 2. Same armor as preceding m1ip. "What does have to do with the price of fish? This thread is about m1a2c . My prior question never had anything to do with the m1a1 or other games? Seriously damien try responding without being a condescending turd for once. And address the points with a rational thought and proofs not with a mental rant and condescending ad hominum tones. Yes a totally uncalled for one. I think you really need to see a mental health care professional to deal with your anger issues.

lots of interesting and needed upgrades, although im scratching my head that M1A2C wont have newer flir, it will only come with M1A2D another few years down the line and only 3rd generation FLIR at that, when there is already 4th Generation Flir technology. I am also sceptical about how much the armor can really be improved without increasing LOS thickness of the turret. There are only so many times you can revise NERA with DU inserts within the current existing Turret Length and expect any significant results. There will simply have to be noticeable LOS increase in turret for it to believable for "significant" armor improvements.

the Idea to upgrade leopard 2 turret armor with the introduction since the 2a5 was to basically weld on Applique armor onto base 2a4 turret. They didnt need to keep revising armor layouts within the current existing LOS limitations of that turret. Even if Base turret designs are argued better, There are limitations within the current turret config going so many years forward Either M1 and Challenger 2 will need a new longer turret with newer variations ( more los thickness will mean more NERA layers will be possible) however within the current Chassis i don't think it may viable therefore will need to go the Leopard 2a5+ route and install applique armor atop based Turret armor to meaningfully improve its armor but this may interfere with the ability of the driver to get out. hatch.

Should have just bought the leopard 2 from the get go https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/

sorry kind of unrelated, just to clarify Challenger 2's TIS, TOGS ? is it the same TOGS that was in use on the Cheiftan mk11 and Challenger 1 or is this a gen 2 version that was put into the Challenger 2?

thank you for clarifying your position on the matter, I now understand.

And you assume that it is not so? this logic works both ways bud.

Such obvious AD hominum . It doesn't matter who you think the game "caters" to. It doesnt make the application of such mechanics any less valid vs not having them. Its realistic function vs having simplified single RHA vs KE values applied to every KE. ammo type In that case why bother having a game at all in fear of who you think is upset for balance or not. The Op thread was not about "fairness" for balane. these discussions are very much valid for older vehicles where more solid information is available. No ones forced to go into wiki sites for more information. DOnt make up assumptions based on what you think a customer wants. At the end of the day it would be up to customer whether or not they care to study differences in amm types. no one said publishing real numbers. I doubt if ESIM even knows real numbers ( even if they may be privy to more than most here) there is a reason such software is made in such a way so the military client can edit values of ARMOR or data if they see fit based on thier own classified information, and not having to worry about trusting a private company with them. Its the same thing with TBS vs DCS. PK missile values or other aspects of more sensitive avionics like EW are adjustable by the military customer to fit the exact tables.

IF so , it would be 26 years too late for that effort to actually matter. But whatever at this point its just nothing but fallacies being thrown into the fray, in poor attempts to discredit said information.

None of which is covered in said document. I never said that all. I expressed many reason why it wouldn't be an assumption merely because of age of document alone.IE re read last post IF the documents had any sensitive nature in general they wouldn't be declasiseifed. Again as i stated there is nothing to gain from "disinformation" here given Burlingon 1 and the Vanilla M1 is no longer "news" for anyone working in foreign intelligence. and at this point i think you are really just grasping at straws here just saying an opposing view just for the sake of it. because youd rather disgree because you look at person instead of the agument, But whatever Yeah ok fine stick to your conspiracy theory beliefs then. Your naive to think that foreign intelligence wouldn't already know about this . You know if your just going to continue to make vague claims that you are unable to actually back up then you may as well stop. At this point your just arguing for the sake of arguing. lol m8 you took it way more than it meant. This is niche enthusiasts/ hobbyists circle. knowledge should be spread through any public community. not the discussion of topic that will change humanity. Nice try there at moral equivalence fallacy on your behalf. discussion on such forums is not equating to helping adversaries progress and somehow gain a technological edge over the West . If we were so effective here, there would be no need for Intelligence Analysts, and foreign nations have far more resources at their disposal besides " Open source Archive" research or searching Open source data on the internet, and certainly more than a "journalist" Seriously how naive are you to think that if Historical or Military Enthusiasts can find such information from open source research do you not think this would all be already in foreign hands?, especially as they can resort to methods that would be impossible for a normal law abiding citizen, such use hacking or actual espionage to obtain the juicy and relevant information? At the end of the day people dont care about politics " People are people. So why should it be" ( actually i know the answer but i wont delve into actual poltics) NO . in the same way a cop never visited anyone i know for watching a pirated DVD. and did counter intel ever visit anyone home for ever browsing a site like wiki leaks or whatever? Probably not. Did NYT or other major national newspaper get shut down when covering stories on published articles based on leaked information. No. Its Besides for the record , that would be a double no because none of the information i look at is actually classified. you dont say?

If you did read the ip thread before it was closed down I dont know how you could have gotten such an impression this wasn't the case here. Now whilst there are such people you describe , there certainly are many that arent like that. I would also add that in any discussion be it internet , article or formal academic papers the proper etiquette is to address the arguments and not attack or dismiss point made simply by character alone. Facts arent any less true just because it originates from a site you may or may not like or if its stated from a person who isn't doing it for a living. Whilst you might have a different view on this. I personally like to share whatever I can. Humanity has progressed because of the spread of knowledge. Not because everyone keeps to themselves. Factual based Discussion and education is a healthy thing.

This sort of skepticism would be understood if discussing a current service vehicle. Not so much for something that's retired, and found in scrapyard or private museums. Why would the cia waste time creating a disinformation document ( public for release in 2014) on a vehicle considering brl1 armor package is obselete and the tank itself no longer in any form of military service ( foreign or domestic) Considering that russia already have implemented nera type armor since cold war and that political foes can and have resort to espionage or hacking, more likely than not this is old news or simply not of interest given it's not around. That is legit document that was made public via foia.

That's irrelevant to the point made. Stop trying to change goalposts and using fallacies for argument That doesn't make the point any less valid. As its demonstrated for distinction. Also I wasn't specifically referring to the us army. Burden of proof freindo.

good point. funny enough even arcade thunder models different armor protection values vs different APFSDS ammo types.