Jump to content

SpecialAgentJohnson

Member
  • Content count

    604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpecialAgentJohnson

  1. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    It's good us not becoming political. What I meant was that if they could afford it then maybe they wouldn't be so upset about paying for us. You are right about the rabbit. It was probably a Hare I saw km away out in the pitch black night in my old 2A4 with x12, now that I think about it. ;-)
  2. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    Lots of LOL. A poll from American teenagers playing an American pc game thinking American tanks are the best! :-) There are real official contests and evaluations you can have a look at instead. When I was talking about x12 magnification I was talking about the Leopard actually. I know what you can see in a x12 thermal because I used to be a gunner. It was not to get rid of them from inventory LOL. It costs A LOT of money to keep a completely unnecessary tank force from rusting away in some heated storage that you have to pay for together with maintenance and security personnel etc. Because "us can afford it" is a non-argument because you could always afford more tanks given any current number of tanks you'd have now. Also American President is complaining about Nato members not putting up enough dough to protect Europe (a legitimate point). I guess we could just reply: You can afford it! Funny! What size are the fuel tanks on the Leppard 2 vs Abrams? I don't know but I would guess them to be bigger on the Abrams for that range.. Is DU armour better than anything our there btw? I don't know.
  3. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    On Abrams engine: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Abrams-tank-is-to-be-reequipped-with-diesel-engines-since-the-gas-turbines-are-so-inefficient
  4. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun "He was the leading figure in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the father of rocket technology and space science in the United States.[4]" Unfortunately evil doesn't make for stupid. Make no mistake, I am however most grateful America kicked some ass back in WW2 as well as also keeping communists at bay as well long after. You are most likely correct about the Tigers and stuff. High maintenance and stretched supply chain totally crippled the invasion of soviet union. Highlighting as well how important such things are when not weekend warrioring and you can go back home whenevwe things get rough. I said preference for Abrams or Leopard was a matter of taste, as opposed to the claim that it "frankly is a poorer design". Both have pros and cons. I simply make the claim that poor design is wrong: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/top_10_main_battle_tanks.htm
  5. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    You may be right. Didn't read to careful actually. Yeah. That was what I was gonna aim for. Like the 2A4 getting blown up there as well.
  6. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    Yeah but if you read the comment they claim just that, that they actually have DU armour. Not that anything could withstand one of those missiles anyway though.
  7. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    I am not German and absolutely not Nazi. But it's a fact. Back in the days they made good stuff (and still do). Germans also invented the Assault rifle, lay the foundation for your M60 machine gun, the first jet-fighter, your moon-program etc. Funny thing here is, the Abrams main gun is German as well. Best tank of WW2 though was the communist T-34 has been said though. Mainly because of the low-maintenance (opposite of todays Abrams). I was writing a long answer, but it disappeared. Gonna have to reply later. In the meantime. Watch also this video of an Abrams being blown up. Looks pretty fatal to me. The 2A4 is an old cold-war style version btw. Should be compared to a cold-war Abrams I recon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yTb3vF35M ISIS for the record were also running around in captured M1 Abrams btw, so yeah maybe they had some advanced stuff actually... Not storing ammunition in crew compartment is a viable point though. Leopard semi-adopted that principle for some reason.
  8. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    What you are talking about are the equivalent of eye candy basically. Not poor design choices. Leopard comes in plethora of variations. Sweden for example had much thicker hatch armour, dual state of the art thermal sights, excellent navigation and strategy control interfaces already back in '98 and before. I doubt Abrams version was that much better actually though I haven't tried both. Have you? Besides Leopa rd has stereoscopic sights where you use both eyes, and for some strange reason, the Abrams still doesn't seem to have this. I hardly don't understand what you would do with x50 magnification. You easily spot rabbits in the night km away with x12 (I don't think it was x13 actually) so I don't know where you got your numbers from. There is a giant rack in the hull, yes, but you don't have to fill it up when going into urban combat. There is plenty ammo in the turret. Hull rack is only reserve and puts less strain on supply vehicles for instance. The M1 is probably more roomy because of the lack of reserve ammo then. I would say maybe it could be possible to pull out the loader (the separator fences are detachable) but it would certainly be cumbersome. Especially for someone who is badly hurt. On the other hand Abrams has no escape hatch for the driver so if he gets hurt or the tanks flips then he wont/might not be able to get out at all. On the other hand, skipping an escape hatch might make it somewhat safer against AT mines. But poor driver if the tank flips. Gun is bigger on the Leopard yes, but it isn't like you can't fire the American round. It's the same gun basically. This is because they don't want to pollute the environment with semi-radioactive (probably not that big of an issue though) depleted uranium. Political reasons . If they would have put the American round in the Leopard it would go even faster than the American round in the Abrams. Bang for the buck is important because you can have more firepower at the same price. Maybe the Abrams is actually overpriced. The idea to put a gas turbine in the Abrams is a rather strange choice that many people would call a...poor design choice. This is because: 1) Range is like half of the Leopard or something like that. 2) Gas turbines are sensitive high rpm engines more susceptible to damage and problems, especially sand storms damaging the engine blades. 3) it puts out hot air on the rear where infantry night want to curl up. It is said to have somewhat better acceleration and to be quieter in Urban environments (Swiss Leopard have engine silencers if that would be a problem), but this in way makes up for these major drawbacks in a dirty battle environment. Bang for the buck is important because you can have more guns in the field at once. Especially when the bigger buck doesn't offer better performance. It is widely considered that the difference in performance between a Leopard and an Abrams is mostly a matter of taste and in which environment and circumstances you deploy it.
  9. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    Yep that's true. And with Abrams most likely being the much better tank, tank warfare is still very much a first-shot-wins kind of game. If I would guess I would say that a T72 won't survive a frontal sabot from an Abrams, but an Abrams might maybe survive a frontal sabot from a T72. But I mean slightly from the side or rear and Abrams would be toast too. This is my guess.
  10. Degrading Constructions overtime

    No thanks. Game should be realistic enough.
  11. Degrading Constructions overtime

    I have never had any of these problems at all so why are you making it an issue in the first place? More optimizations are coming as well.
  12. Struggling with this game

    Cool. But on the other hand, if no team sucked ever, then you wouldn't have that sweet everything-works-perfectly kind of victory over another team either so...
  13. Degrading Constructions overtime

    I don't want this. It would a MAJOR turnoff for me. I love to build stuff. It's great fun. Also sand bags degrade anyway when they are blown to pieces occasionally. Haven't noticed any bad server performance affecting me as a connecting client. Anyway games aren't that long anyway for this to be a major problem, right? When it comes to vehicles however. There might be a point to it, but that would be as a game mechanic rather then I think. I mean the game should be able to sustain a set of amount of vehicles at any time, right? I also think you know, in a sense that if you loose your cars then you should pay for it! Either that or go fetch them. I would rather have some kind of light penalty system for losing valuable assets then, but I don't know how that would look like. Maybe a way to force the people losing it to go fetch it back again...?
  14. Sights should go back when tanks are firing

    That computer game looks pretty accurate. I would argue that possibly the blackout time was slightly longer, like almost a second, but mind me, it was 20 years ago I fired one for real so I might remember incorrectly. I remember it as quite irritating to go blind for that long, actually. What I do remember very clearly though was how very undramatic it was to fire the main gun. I was expecting this big rocking blast - like currently in Squad - but I was surprised at how very little was felt inside the tank at all. Standing outside is very intense but actually firing it from the inside doesn't feel anything basically. Again the game above looks more like the real deal to me. What also looks very accurate is the fire control system with no problems to hit a moving target at first shot. Look at this video how still the tank really is. A slight suspension wiggle only. Hard anything actually. The gun is the same or very similar to the Abrams main gun: https://youtu.be/WrZni_qAorQ
  15. IRL sights go black when tanks fire. This is to keep the gunner from going blind from the extremely intense brightness of the flame of the gun which is basically as big as the tank itself for an instant. It takes maybe a second or so until you can see through the sights again. Also there is no shaking going on as you fire. It takes more than a little gunpowder to rock sixty tonnes of armour.
  16. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    I bet you are American, right? Claim Leopard 2 is a poorer design than Abrams is clearly bullshit: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/4088/leopard-2-named-world's-best-tank-(jan.-9).html They also stem from the same dev project to begin with, and are in many ways parts compatible with eachother to better meet, yeah precisely that - the threat of an all out war in Eastern Europe. This was actually their primary purpose to begin with. To counter Russian invasion. This is also why they are not that well suited for today's Urban environment actually, although they still do a good job of course. Germans are well-known for sophisticated war technology. In WW2 German tanks were far superior to American tanks in general.
  17. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    I susoect the T72 can probably one-shot the Abrams as well. At least on the sides and definitely in the rear. And less than 1km or so. Abrams can probably sustain a hit front on though. Maybe not point blank though. I don't know.
  18. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    Haha. They are talking about tanks being too powerful already. Putting APS Trophy etc systems would totally kill the gameplay completely. Besides isn't that state of the art kind of technology? Quite often in war people get deployed with much less than the latest tech. For instance in Iraq. First years they didn't even have gun shields on their humvee's 50's. Found out the hard way it was a good idea I am afraid. As far as I am concerned this level of fine-graine detail stuff only steals valuable development time without adding anything to gameplay. Let's focus on choppers instead...
  19. Sights should go back when tanks are firing

    Oh really? I just assumed that was the case for basically all tanks because it was like that on the Leopard 2 which I was on and it seemed logical.... And you didn't get blind when firing? Wonder why they have it on the Leopard then as it doesn't seem to be necessary(?) Flames are bigger than the entire tank though so wouldn't matter much where you'd put the sights basically. But then again, if it's not necessary then why have it... BTW, wasn't it irritating to just have one-eye scope to look in all the time?
  20. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    Yeah I won't argue the Leopard crew calling it a day after having their turret ammo stack blown up. Though technically it is possible to pick out one or two rounds from the rather big reserve and throw them somewhere if they are like immobilized or something.
  21. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    I've seen it from reports in Afghanistan and Syria. Also in Iraq they had a lot of heavy equipment they stole from the government. T-55 is like really old post world war 2 material as well so... Probably have a hard time against a modern US tank.
  22. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    I don't think AT4 is tandem like the rpg 29 is right? Tandem and ATGMs are a real threat for sure. As well as heavy AT mines. T-72 is a rather old tank by the way. Actually I don't see what the problem is much actually. If you don't like tanks then don't play maps with tanks. Like Tahlil outskirts for example. People are complaining about tanks, but tanks also support infantry against other tanks and BTRs etc. Then again, tanks should be accurately modelled. By the way, I think insurgent should have like a really old T-55. That would be realistic.
  23. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    No, then we would have Battlefield series. Those games suck because the weapons are useless. Tanks should be feared but there should be plenty of countermeasures. Heavy IEDs for insurgents. Javelin. Even choppers etc. Sounds great. The Leopard has plenty of more ammo down in the hull. I would guess the Abrams does too. Reloading might be a bit cumbersome though. Shells are a bit difficult too extract swiftly.
  24. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    And your numbers from a computer game? They are not all that different though. But they are probably at the most defended points and not the rear. Exact numbers are probably classified anyway. But I mean exactly what are they penetrating when they hit the engine compartment do you mean? Its not going to be the crew compartment that is for sure. It's going to cause a mobility kill at most. Like I said. They won't penetrate the crew compartment with an AT4.
  25. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    I have another solution for imbalance that is not discussed a lot and that is AT mines. AT mines are cheap and used extensively throughout conflicts. Why not hand out loads off them to infantry squads? It is a very effective way to block off urban environments from armored vehicles. It wouldn't be unrealistic.
×