Jump to content
kev2go

M1A2 wrong ammo type?

Recommended Posts

Why is the M1A1 Abrams using the M829A4?

 

That is supposed to be a new round Only compatible with the upcoming M1A2 SEP V3 of tanks. Its using Datalink technology only to be utilized with that model

 

To quote "The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT"

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2015/pdf/army/2015m829a4.pdf

 

 

So it seems any earlier M1 variants should not be using anything more Modern than the M89A3 APFSDS.

 

 

 

AS an Aside I hope that To further differentiate the  current M1A2 from the  intended M1A1, besides being armed with cros  the team Consider putting TRophy APS. The US army Recently Modified a number of M1A2's to have this, and would be a great feature to have to counter AGTM.

 

 

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/261-m1-tanks-getting-trophy-anti-missile-system-as-army-reorients-to-major-wars/

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because America is the best and everything made in US of A is the best.I really am strugling to understand how thy even made that Abrams needs to shoot the t-72b3 more the once to destroy it.And yeah that was sarcasm right there.

I love how thy put all modern stuff for the USA and when we asked about T-90 thy told us the amount of T-90 is to small to be considered as a MBT.

 

So my friend if i was i would not sweat it that much.

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M829A4 was designed for the M1A2SEP, but the gun systems for the two tanks are virtually identical. The only missing thing is the datalink, which shouldn't stop the A4 from being firable. Otherwise the breach, barrel and firing system are identical afaik.

 

Good catches though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nagasuru said:

The Abrams in game is an M1A2 not in M1A1. 

At least it's supposed to be an M1A2.

 

I don't know enough to confirm my self, but I read that much of the model more closely resembles an M1A1 (something about the turret basket not being long enough and something else). But yeah for all intents and purposes it's supposed to be an M1A2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nagasuru said:

The Abrams in game is an M1A2 not in M1A1. 

 

 

I was confused myself. When trying to confirm variation the wiki states m1a1.

 

Genral content announcement just called it an m1 abrams.

 

But from looks obviously is  resembling of an m1a2 sep v2 given it has crows remote gunnery system.

 

The m1a1s cont use crows, not even modernised m1a1 aim or m1a1 SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 7:38 AM, Bahrein said:

Because America is the best and everything made in US of A is the best.I really am strugling to understand how thy even made that Abrams needs to shoot the t-72b3 more the once to destroy it.And yeah that was sarcasm right there.

I love how thy put all modern stuff for the USA and when we asked about T-90 thy told us the amount of T-90 is to small to be considered as a MBT.

 

So my friend if i was i would not sweat it that much.

Is that so? Really?

 

I recall seeing WIP images of a T90 implying it would come at some point just like 2 versions of the M1 abrams

 

it just doesnt make sense Ok sure I'd understand if it was  a tank that had only 100  examples produced or less like the t14 armata  but there's a least 550 t90s in Russian service  some of which have already gone through modernization process to T90m. All  fleet of which be modernised  by 2020- 2025

 

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kev2go said:

Really? That's a crock of ####.

 

Ok sure I'd understand if it was 100 vehicles or less like the t14 armata but there's a least 550 t90s in Russian service  some of which have already gone through modernization process to t90m. All  fleet of which be modernised  by 2020- 2025

 

 

It comes off quite hypocritical to plan to give usa 2 m1 variations. All this talk balance considerations from the e3v team but no t90? Lol k.

 

Guess its selective balance.

In reality, in terms of a large scale regional conflict or all out war, Russia would deploy it's T72 line of tanks more so than anything else. They're very capable tanks & they have a lot of them to spare, cheaper to replace too. They're not exactly super inferior to the T90 line of tanks either, They're quite identical(Not surprising really, Since the T90 was originally an upgraded T72, named T72BU) - Main differences between T90 & T72, are APS, TDS, ERA & differing turret and engine upgrade. Even then, the newer T72's(T72B3M) are even more identical to the T90 line of tanks, & in some aspects better. 

 

There's no selective balance at all, if that was the case, the T72's in Squad wouldn't be dumpstering the Abrams in most frontal engagements in Squad currently lol.  I think one of the main reasons they went for the T72, was because it was far easier to get a 3D scan of a T72. Could be just a case of artistic freedom.

 

Sometimes you may not agree with what direction the devs are going, or what content they decide to add - But there's no need to get heated over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dubs said:

In reality, in terms of a large scale regional conflict or all out war, Russia would deploy it's T72 line of tanks more so than anything else.

 

 

Sure they would  along with the T90, which Service and production numbers shouldnt be downplayed, Hell Russia would also Deploy thier T80's, of which they also recently invested money in modernizing ( see T80BVM)  The only reason not to deploy the T90 is if it was a small scale Insurgency war or invasion against a 3rd world country that is using inferior equipment, where latest and greatest wouldnt be nesssary.

 

Against a conventional Shooting war against  a modern army   like USA ( we have RU vs US matchups) you bet your *** the T90 would be mass deployed  along with the more numerous T72's to Front lines, especially if were talking a war in thier backyard . ( Ie Eastern Europe)

 

Quote

They're very capable tanks & they have a lot of them to spare, cheaper to replace too.

 

 

You cant replace something that isn't in production. None of the  family  former cold war MBT ( T64,T72, T80) currently  are. What you probably mean is theres simply been alot of them produced and thiers lots of them still around, but you can replace them. 

 

If anything was produced theyd either go for a newer T90  , if not entirely focus production on making T14 Armatas as its the only design worth producing thats going to be valid for tommorows wars.  Its more practical to produce 1 design, something the Russians learned from the mistake of those  aforementioned 3 tanks.

Quote

 

They're not exactly super inferior to the T90 line of tanks either, They're quite identical

 

 

kinda of but not really. T72B3 is utilizing the older Cast Turret to the newer composite Welded Turret on the T90A ( only same as Initial T90) and the MAjority of T72B3 tanks were modernized T72B Model 1985's which have Inferior Frontal Armor array to the T90 series.  T72B model 1989 introduced a new HUll armor Array and was the first T72 to be equipped with Kontact 5, however was not manufactured in large numbers given the cold war soon ended and production of the T90 commenced after fall of the Soviet block . This is what the T72BU ( or later T90) would have had in terms of tank chasis/ armor.

 

T72b3 is stil a pleb tank in reality by todays standards.  Nothing more than a modernization of cold war made tanks to try to make it on par on the T90 or T90a, which armor would have been relevant in the 90s, but basically redundant  since 2003 if faced against M1's issued with  M829A3 ( or better). 

 

 

Quote

 

(Not surprising really, Since the T90 was originally an upgraded T72, named T72BU) - Main differences between T90 & T72, are APS, TDS, ERA & differing turret and engine upgrade.

 

 

and lol just an upgraded T72?. T90 would have been much better than the most common version f the T72B ( model 1985) and only would have been a more modest update over the T72B model 1989. Which would have constituted a more sophisticated  Fire control system ( taken from the T80U) along with Laser rangefinder detectors, and scramblers against guide missiles.

 

The new Turret, engine upgrade, and thermals  came with the T-90A  neither T90 not T90A have APS. APS suite came with T90M upgrades. 

 

 

And these changes do make a differnece, By the same  logic the M1A2 SEP is nothing more than just an  gulf war M1A1  HA using newer generation DU  Armor inserts and having a remote gunnery system , along with  better optics , thermals, and overall FCS ( FCS is simplified so much its not really worth comparing between tanks) 

 

Quote

 

Even then, the newer T72's(T72B3M) are even more identical to the T90 line of tanks, & in some aspects better. 

 

Wow New Sideskirts with greater ERA coverage!  What makes a bigger impact for the  B3M better is the yet again Fire control. , electronics side of things 

 

and Its also  of those examples were T72B3M is would be less deploy-able in terms of numbers than the T90/T90A, as T72B3 fleet is not anywhere near entirely updated to that standard.

 

Before you  further lecture on deployable numbers there's the m17 handgun in game  which is still in lesser numbers then the total accumulated amount of m9s and yet still has a place in game, albeit in a limited form only for the Squd leader as other classes like MEdic that have handguns  are issued the M9


 

Quote

 

There's no selective balance at all, if that was the case, the T72's in Squad wouldn't be dumpstering the Abrams in most frontal engagements in Squad currently lol. 

 

And actually if anything m1a2 should be curbstomping a t72b3 not the other way around. Given superior protection and having By far good enough ammo that doesn't Care. About T72's  armor. ( even the M829A3) 

 

Quote

I think one of the main reasons they went for the T72, was because it was far easier to get a 3D scan of a T72.

 

 

ultimately thats why i suggested no barebones  t90 Or even the T90A but the T90m. Which has a new turret design over the T90A  and has frontal coverage with 3rd generation ERA,  relikt, APS and  separate compartment with  backup Ammunition stowage n a seerpete compartment in the back of the turret protected by Blowout panels.

 

This would certainly be much better tank than the T72B3 or a basic T90/T90A.

 

FyI that was out of consideration for the responses i got from people who say it wouldn't be fair for a M1A2 to be the Top dog to the T72B3., so it was a suggestion out of curtesy of a  substantially more powerful Russian tanks

 

 

 

Again the simple  comprise via realism solution is to just introduce the t90. And simply making it less common  than the t72b3, and in order to make it more realistic, Simply have More T72B3's spawn-able than M1's so they have a numbers advantage, and thats  plausible balance right there, .

 

 

 

Quote

 

Could be just a case of artistic freedom.

 

yes like the  3 plate Armor on the side skirts which is that of a T90/T90A's. and is not fitted on a T72B3.

 

 

Quote

Sometimes you may not agree with what direction the devs are going, or what content they decide to add - But there's no need to get heated over it.

 

IM not heated over it, The statement that not including T90 because of not being a relevant tank  just doesn't make sense when It is in fact produced in more than significant enough numbers ( Russia still has more T90s' than the current amount of   Leopard 2'sthat Germany has FYI) and that there are WIP screens for it .

 

 

RaP_T90A__HiPoly_R1.png]]

 

 

RaP_T-90A_LP__Screenshot_1.png

 

 

 

You know it worries me when a standalone  successor of project reality, is missing the "reality" and when games like ARMA 3  ( with all its artistic freedom) and RO2 come off as more realistic and immersive with their vehicles gameplay than Squad does, and still managing to be "balanced" without it being obvious of forced down peoples throats.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kev2go said:

 

Sure they would  along with the T90, which Service and production numbers shouldnt be downplayed, Hell Russia would also Deploy thier T80's, of which they also recently invested money in modernizing ( see T80BVM)  The only reason not to deploy the T90 is if it was a small scale Insurgency war or invasion against a 3rd world country that is using inferior equipment, where latest and greatest wouldnt be nesssary.

 

Against a conventional Shooting war against  a modern army   like USA ( we have RU vs US matchups) you bet your *** the T90 would be mass deployed  along with the more numerous T72's to Front lines, especially if were talking a war in thier backyard . ( Ie Eastern Europe)

Sure there would be deployments of T90's and T80's, have to use everything at your disposal - But you'd see the T72's line of tanks being used for majority of operations, while the 80's and 90's would be more so held back for reserves or in support of T72's. 
 

13 hours ago, kev2go said:

You cant replace something that isn't in production. None of the  family  former cold war MBT ( T64,T72, T80) currently  are. What you probably mean is theres simply been alot of them produced and thiers lots of them still around, but you can replace them. 

 

If anything was produced theyd either go for a newer T90  , if not entirely focus production on making T14 Armatas as its the only design worth producing thats going to be valid for tommorows wars.  Its more practical to produce 1 design, something the Russians learned from the mistake of those  aforementioned 3 tanks.

Doesn't need to be in production to replace it. Russia has around 2000 modernized T72 variants, lose one, replace it with another. Start losing modern variants in battle, can easily replace their numbers with the 4000+ older T72 variants, and use the B3/B3M upgrade kits.

The T14 has proven too expensive to be mass produced, hence why it's very likely the ordered number of units wont meet it's deadline. It's why Russia is not only upgrading the T90 line of tanks, but the T72 line of tanks too.
 

13 hours ago, kev2go said:

and lol just an upgraded T72?. T90 would have been much better than the most common version f the T72B ( model 1985) and only would have been a more modest update over the T72B model 1989. Which would have constituted a more sophisticated  Fire control system ( taken from the T80U) along with Laser rangefinder detectors, and scramblers against guide missiles.

 

The new Turret, engine upgrade, and thermals  came with the T-90A  neither T90 not T90A have APS. APS suite came with T90M upgrades. 

The T90 was originally an upgrade of the T72, It's name was literally the T72BU - Until some silly propaganda war happened about inferior Russian tanks compared to other nations - So Russian decided to rebrand it to the T90 series and upgrade a few aspects of it, to give it a new look and feel. Obviously the T90 has changed since then, but is still pretty identical to the T72 tanks. 
 

13 hours ago, kev2go said:

Wow New Sideskirts with greater ERA coverage!  What makes a bigger impact for the  B3M better is the yet again Fire control. , electronics side of things 

 

and Its also  of those examples were T72B3M is would be less deploy-able in terms of numbers than the T90/T90A, as T72B3 fleet is not anywhere near entirely updated to that standard.

 

Before you  further lecture on deployable numbers there's the m17 handgun in game  which is still in lesser numbers then the total accumulated amount of m9s and yet still has a place in game, albeit in a limited form only for the Squd leader as other classes like MEdic that have handguns  are issued the M9

It's a bit more than new side skirts. 
- New FCS, Thermals, Hunter-Killer and some other things.
- Relikt ERA
- 2A46M5 Main gun, which has 9M119M refleks capabilities.
- V-92S2F Engine, which knocks it up to 1160hp
- Some new changes with bar suspension, three turn rollers etc

The M17 was added to give variety I think, a bit of creative freedom, Just like how the MIL/INS have two pistols, the Makarov and Tokarev. More variety. Who's to say Squad might not get more vehicle variants in the future? These vehicles are the planned ones to be done, before 1.0 full release - After that, the Devs do plan to support Squad with updates etc for a couple more years after full release.
 

13 hours ago, kev2go said:

And actually if anything m1a2 should be curbstomping a t72b3 not the other way around. Given superior protection and having By far good enough ammo that doesn't Care. About T72's  armor. ( even the M829A3) 

Right now, it takes into consideration angle of armor, angle of impact etc In Squad. Due to the shape of the T72B3 armor from the front, it causes more deflections than penetration shots. Just between the turret and hull, there is a sweet spot which will cause the T72 to penetrate and 1 shot an M1A2, as it goes through the armor and hits the ammo storage, due to the shape of the M1A2 armor there, and the angle of the T72B3's shot.

In saying this, it's far from selective balance in favor of the U.S.
 

13 hours ago, kev2go said:

You know it worries me when a standalone  successor of project reality, is missing the "reality" and when games like ARMA 3  ( with all its artistic freedom) and RO2 come off as more realistic and immersive with their vehicles gameplay than Squad does, and still managing to be "balanced" without it being obvious of forced down peoples throats.

Squad has never claimed to be 100% realistic, or a simulation, neither did PR(Despite having "Reality" in the name). Both have a mix of realism & arcade elements.

Arma 3 aims for realism(Even then, Mods provide 5x more realism than the vanilla experience) and has 8 years of development under it's belt(4 years from Arma 2 : OA release to Arma 3 release, 4 years from Arma 3 Release to now). Completely different goal for their game, larger budget, larger dev team and far more time in their development cycle. It's artistic freedom was more so forced, due to espionage charges and being slammed by companies for not having correct licences to have their equipment/vehicles in-game.

PR has had 10+ years of development, and throughout it's development cycle, there's been tonnes of balance issues lol It's never been perfect, it's had a lot of ups and downs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a side question. Is the reason they haven't put the T90 or M variant MBT in Squad is because it most probably requires licensing? I remember a forum post related to another game saying that Russian modern equipment requires licensing. Russia is funny about developers replicating their modern equipment.  

Edited by Quadro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2018 at 12:05 AM, Dubs said:

Sure there would be deployments of T90's and T80's, have to use everything at your disposal - But you'd see the T72's line of tanks being used for majority of operations, while the 80's and 90's would be more so held back for reserves or in support of T72's. 

 

Naaa t80s are no longer in production. Since 2001. These are arguably also expendable tanks. T90 was meant as russia next standard tank yo fo away with any further production of 3 different tank families. 

 

T90s on the other hand are still produced for export contracts and therefore they can still produce more of them for russia

 

 

Quote

 


 

Doesn't need to be in production to replace it. Russia has around 2000 modernized T72 variants, lose one, replace it with another. Start losing modern variants in battle, can easily replace their numbers with the 4000+ older T72 variants, and use the B3/B3M upgrade kits.

 

 

Yes that's what I said. But how many of those 4000 tanks are actually worthy of restoration?

 

Just because it sists in a scrap yard doesnt necessarily mean it is.

 

 

And for those exact reasons that's exactly why t90s would be sent in alongside t72s.

 

The t72s would be lost far faster and in greater numbers than the t90 or t14 due to being less capable. Eventually in a protracted war these stock will run out and there will be no choice but to produce t90s and t14s. 

 

 

The t72b3 ov today is mirroring what the t72 a and b versions were in the cold war. Cheap expendable tank because 1 vs 1 they really arent expected fo toe to  toe with western tanks like the m1a2.

 

They would only overwhelm with raw numbers. 

 

 

Quote



The T14 has proven too expensive to be mass produced, hence why it's very likely the ordered number of units wont meet it's deadline. It's why Russia is not only upgrading the T90 line of tanks, but the T72 line of tanks too.

 

 

That's because russia already has lots of t90s and even more t72s and also stocks of t80s

 

The reason t72s are modernised is because they would have had zero chance against current tanks. And current anti tank threats from infantry operated systems . However even against these kontact 5 is somewhat lacking as  tow warheads since post cold war era were also designed to bypass era like kontact 5. And there are also top down attack vaitans of the tow missile. Not to mention others like the javelin . Against top down attack munitions aps suite is a must have.

 

 

Even with modernization they are still something on an expendable tank being inferior on 1 vs  1 basis to tanks like the m1a2 sep . Kontact 5 is irrelevant against current apfsds ammuntion western nations use. And the old armor arrays may as well be made of paper relative to how much armor they can pierce.

Quote

 


 

The T90 was originally an upgrade of the T72, It's name was literally the T72BU - Until some silly propaganda war happened about inferior Russian tanks compared to other nations - So Russian decided to rebrand it to the T90 series

 

 

Quote

 

and upgrade a few aspects of it, to give it a new look and feel.

 

 

 

That's not the full story. The t72bu only existed with prototypes and a few pre production models. As soon as mass production happened the name was changed to T90, and mind you that's under yeltsin's input. Originally the tank was to be called t88 but boris Yeltsin suggested it aught yo ne called the t90 yo indicate that this tank was being produced during the 1990s and to indicate this was Russian first  new tank production  in post Soviet era.

 

Quote

 

Obviously the T90 has changed since then, but is still pretty identical to the T72 tanks. 

 

 

Yes it's not an entirely new tank design  therefore that still has similarities but is not  identical. 

 

But the same could be said for 3 former tank families ( t64, t72, and t80) similarities but still different features and not logistically compatible.

 

That would be like saying an m1a1 I's identical to an m1a2.

 

 

Quote

 


 

It's a bit more than new side skirts. 
- New FCS, Thermals, Hunter-Killer and some other things.

 

 

Something the t90m already has. But for gameplay this is irrelevant to get into because all tanks fire controls effectively function the same.

Quote

 


- Relikt ERA

 

 

Not entirely true.

 

 Only on packed into new sideskirt armor. Was only used on a few t72b3,s that were shown in may day parades.

 

Most of the mere 150 t72b3m are instead using  3 plate armor application fitted with kontact 5  like the t90/t90a model tank.

 

However  even assuming all had the relikt sideskirts this isnt exclusive to t72b3m. Newer batches of export t90 (t90s) have seen this fitted. ( see iraqi t90s for eg)

 

you can see it very obviously has kontact 5.

 

Compare bricks to the t90m  ( or export t90ms) and you will see how relickt era application to frontal armor looks totally  different to kontact 5

 

 

Quote


- 2A46M5 Main gun, which has 9M119M refleks capabilities.

 

Minor differences.   newer incremental improvement of the 125mm cannon Can easily be retrofitted to any other tank.

 

The  agtm is more of a novelty item. All tanks composite arrays have substantially better protection against tandem warheads than kinetic energy. The only advantage is the raw distance that one can engage. However agtms travel far slower than standard tank ammo.

 

Especially when one takes into considerationof standard tank combat ranges in a typical western European theater ( 1.5 km) in almost always situation a d especially at that distance it's more practical to just shoot standard tank ammo.

 

That why most western nations rank designers havent bothered with having dual purpose smoothbore guns with agtm capability.

 

Not to mention those refleks agtms are studily expensive.  That's why Russian tanks generally dont carry more than 4.

 

In the cold war ussr cut back costs by making agtmless versions of certain if I  tanks to cut back costs.

 

Ie t64b/bv1 or  t72b1 , the agtmless versions of thier standard production brothers 

 

Quote


- V-92S2F Engine, which knocks it up to 1160hp

 

An incremental speed upgrade. Over the t90m.

 

But remember at the same time the t72b3m weighs more than the b3. So the engine upgrade doesnt make as big an impact t as it is in part just there to compensate for extra weight.

 

Quote


- Some new changes with bar suspension, three turn rollers etc

 

Incremental changes. Something players would barely if at all notice from a gameplay point of view.

 

 

If you a totally read my post I noted that it was more than that. 

But most of these changes are  not big for gameplay reasons.

 

 

Quote


The M17 was added to give variety I think, a bit of creative freedom, Just like how the MIL/INS have two pistols, the Makarov and Tokarev. More variety. Who's to say Squad might not get more vehicle variants in the future? These vehicles are the planned ones to be done, before 1.0 full release - After that, the Devs do plan to support Squad with updates etc for a couple more years after full release.

 

 

 

And for the same reason t90 should be added at somepoint for ussr. For greater variety and would be more different  than having a t72b3 and a t72b3m. Which are more similar.

 

With realistic balancing t72 wouldbe made weaker  and the t90 the more powerful tank of the two. Because ot would be especially true of the t90m. Having full relikt coverage.

Quote


 

Right now, it takes into consideration angle of armor, angle of impact etc In Squad. Due to the shape of the T72B3 armor from the front, it causes more deflections than penetration shots.

 

Yes i understand how the mechanics in squad work. But the point was it doesnt matter how much angling the t72 has. 

 

The old cold war armor arrays and konta t 5 are totally redundant against ammunition like m829a4. That designed to negate relikt. And newer armor arrays.

 

Even  prior m829a3 which is available today in much larger quantities ( and since 2003)  make the t72b3,s protection irrelevant against it.

Quote

Just between the turret and hull, there is a sweet spot which will cause the T72 to penetrate and 1 shot an M1A2, as it goes through the armor and hits the ammo storage, due to the shape of the M1A2 armor there, and the angle of the T72B3's shot.

 

 

Except what should really happen is the the m1a2 gunner would basically  be point and click anywhere on a t72 and lolpen it  anywhere. Even 10x  more so at point blank ranges.

 

Given the 3bm60 apfsds  even the m1a2 Shouldnt be expected to survive tanking any shots at close ranges.

Quote

 



In saying this, it's far from selective balance in favor of the U.S.
 

Squad has never claimed to be 100% realistic, or a simulation, neither did PR(Despite having "Reality" in the name). Both have a mix of realism & arcade elements.

 

Yes and i know it's not a tank or tank ballistics sim but within the model should be made to closer represent these tanks interaction between projectile and armor.

Quote

 



Arma 3 aims for realism(Even then, Mods provide 5x more realism than the vanilla experience) and has 8 years of development under it's belt(4 years from Arma 2 : OA release to Arma 3 release, 4 years from Arma 3 Release to now). Completely different goal for their game, larger budget, larger dev team and far more time in their development cycle.

 

It's artistic freedom was more so forced, due to espionage charges

Not really. Arma 3 was already advertised as near futuristic tactical shooter utilizing lotsof artistic freedom, even before the charges were brought up.

 

These espionage charges were blown out of proportion by the greeks. They a cidentlsly photographed a few bases. This would have in impact in restricting vehicles or equipment

Quote

and being slammed by companies for not having correct licences to have their equipment/vehicles in-game.

 

This is a likier story.

 

 

Quote



PR has had 10+ years of development, and throughout it's development cycle, there's been tonnes of balance issues lol It's never been perfect, it's had a lot of ups and downs.

 

 

P.r should at least be on par with its predecessor and as a new standalone game should ultimately strive to be better beyond prettier visuals. Cant still be  more realistic without being a sim or  super realistic shooter likearma 3 or like red orchestra 2. 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs need to choose between the B3 obr. 2011 or the B3. obr 2016. The current model in-game looks like a hybrid of both. I personally think, for balancing purposes, the B3 obr. 2016 would be better. It has a newer 2A46M-5 gun (Same as T-90MS) which is capable of firing Svinets-1 and Svinets-2, which can penetrate most NATO hull armor. 

 

It should also be noted that the current AA gun on the B3. obr. 2016 is the KORD, not the NSVT.

 

 

Edited by Brightnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brightnight said:

The devs need to choose between the B3 obr. 2011 or the B3. obr 2016. The current model in-game looks like a hybrid of both. I personally think, for balancing purposes, the B3 obr. 2016 would be better. It has a newer 2A46M-5 gun (Same as T-90MS) which is capable of firing Svinets-1 and Svinets-2, which can penetrate most NATO hull armor. 

 

It should also be noted that the current AA gun on the B3. obr. 2016 is the KORD, not the NSVT.

 

 

You are correct the BM-60 (810mm RHA) is the best APFSDS round currently employed by Russia, and is roughly equivalent to the M829A3(840mm RHA). It is still incapable of penetrating the M1A2 frontally anywhere except the gun mantle or turret ring. 

 

The M829A4 with its greater penetration characteristics will pen a T-90 frontally anywhere at under 2000m. The M829A3 will pen anywhere except the far right or left of the turret. To make matters worse the DU rounds used are pyrokinetic and basically flash the air inside the turret igniting any Ammo not behind protection. 

 

I admit this would not be fun for Russian teams, but these are the real facts of the situation.  Right now neither tank currently in game is a valid representation because a real world representation would lead to a bad overmatch regardless of which Russian tank was chosen. So just enjoy the the T-72 being much better in combat than its real world counterpart.

Edited by hasler74
Spelling is hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hasler74 said:

You are correct the BM-60 (810mm RHA) is the best APFSDS round currently employed by Russia, and is roughly equivalent to the M829A3(840mm RHA). It is still incapable of penetrating the M1A2 frontally anywhere except the gun mantle or turret ring. 

 

The M829A4 with its greater penetration characteristics will pen a T-90 frontally anywhere at under 2000m. The M829A3 will pen anywhere except the far right or left of the turret. To make matters worse the DU rounds used are pyrokinetic and basically flash the air inside the turret igniting any Ammo not behind protection. 

 

I admit this would not be fun for Russian teams, but these are the real facts of the situation.  Right now neither tank currently in game is a valid representation because a real world representation would lead to a bad overmatch regardless of which Russian tank was chosen. So just enjoy the the T-72 being much better in combat than its real world counterpart.

Ehh, its more complicated than that. Armor values are highly classified and the best we have is estimates given by experts. Just to make a few points

 

A. Technically, the best APFSDS round used by Russia is Vaccum-1, which is being used by T-14.

B. You state that it can't penetrate the frontal armor of an Abrams, but then list two areas where it can.

1. Different parts of the Abram's frontal armor has different values. The M1A2 SEP has a glacis rating of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT. Frontal turret rating of  940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620  vs HEAT. And a lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT. (According to  Steven  J. Zaloga. Dont know the distances used to estimate)           C. You are stating that M829A4 can pen a T-90 (Don't know the values for the A variant. M variant is much better protected than all other Russian T-series tanks.) anywhere at under 2km. Yes, that is true. But you don't apply the same for the T-72 which you only give its RHA at 2km. Under 2km, its clearly going to penetrate more (basic physics). Given that most engagements in Squad between tanks is well within 2km. (Usually 300m lol) I would say theres a pretty good chance of a T-72 obr. 2016 penning the frontal armor of an M1A2 and vice versa.

 

 

So yes, The T-72 would have a hard time penetrating the frontal armor of an Abrams but its not impossible as you state. (I mean, you dont even really say that as you give an example of two parts of the frontal armor that CAN be penetrated) Also, note that I said NATO hulls. The Russian military doesn't expect to take on any Abrams in Eastern Europe. They plan on meeting Polish Leopard 2A4s and A5s, which are frankly poorer designs with thinner armor where it matters. (Fight me Leoboos)

 

Currently the real issues are with ATGMs. That armor values are all over the place with that shit. Can't even pen the turret bustle of an Abrams or the back of a T72 with a Kornet or TOW, its getting ridiculous fam.

Edited by Brightnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-23 at 12:08 AM, kev2go said:

Why is the M1A1 Abrams using the M829A4?

 

That is supposed to be a new round Only compatible with the upcoming M1A2 SEP V3 of tanks. Its using Datalink technology only to be utilized with that model

 

To quote "The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT"

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2015/pdf/army/2015m829a4.pdf

 

 

Any earlier M1 variants should not be using anything more Modern than the M89A3 APFSDS.

 

Furthermore M1A1 shouldn't have CROWS ( It was introduced on the M1A2 SEP V2) .  It would especially be then easier to tell  M1A1 from M1A2 SEP.

 

Even with More modernised Variant the US army used today the M1A1 AIM, or m1a1 SA this is just a few battalions , and  the are US Army national guard branch. So for the record This tank wouldn't be sent into combat overseas. ANd its unlikely to ever do so unless an Army ever sets foot on US soil. ( also nill chance)

 

AS an Aside I hope that To further differentiate the M1A2 from the M1A1 the team Consider putting TRophy APS. The US army Recently Modified a number of M1A2's to have this, and would be a great feature to have to counter AGTM.

 

 

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/261-m1-tanks-getting-trophy-anti-missile-system-as-army-reorients-to-major-wars/

 

 

 

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... 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Haha. They are talking about tanks being too powerful already. Putting APS Trophy etc systems would totally kill the gameplay completely.

 

 

can be balanced by making  APS a 1 time thing. kind of like your Car insurance 1st time accident forgiveness. 

 

 

Further more as game development goes on there will be even more powerful anti tank weapons possible like the Javelin. 

 

These will basically on the other hand be too OP against any tanks that dont have APS.

 

Quote

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.

 

 In war highest tech stuff gets sent along with the rest so it can get Combat proven , or turn the tides. The amount of Trophy equipped  M1A2's ( even the USMC are getting a APS mod for thier  M1A1's) will still be greater  than the current known amount of T72B3M's  produced so yea......

 

IF you read my other threads then if they made armor and ammo more  realistic Tanks wouldn't ( and shouldn't be so powerful) in being able to survive so many shots from either anti tank weapons when facing Tank vs Tank.

 

 

Quote

 

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... 

 

 

 

A specifc piece of gameplay should be polished and finished first . Id rather have fine tuned gameplay than rush job just because a few are too impatient until new content gets added from an entirely different aspect of gameplay.

 

Besides why not both Infantry always get balanced  or patched every few updates. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels like a bit weird discussion, a game is a game and as someone said: "A game is supposed to be fun and fair. War is neither". If you want this super realistic you also have to add a ton of ATGM:s. Because that is what is going to meet the Abrams. To compensate for the shortcomings of the tanks the russian side would have deployed vast numbers of ATGM:s, both infantry and vehicle born. Same thing with the insurgents. It would not be 40 v 40, it would be 40 v 4000. A certain amount of balance is still needed for the game to work. You cannot add all kind of stuff for the US if you dont add something to counter it with for the other side. If you for ex add attack choppers then you will also need Anti air like stingers to counter them with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Feels like a bit weird discussion, a game is a game and as someone said: "A game is supposed to be fun and fair. War is neither".

 

and thats why the T72B3's top dog MBT right now? balance doesn't always work out, and it takes patches for it to be adjust over time. see all various changes that have been done in infantry since squads release.

Quote

 

If you want this super realistic you also have to add a ton of ATGM:s.

 

There are plenty enough AGTMS ant anti tank weapons. The only side that could use a new anti tank weapon would be USA. Something that Isnt disposable, and can Rerload warheads like the M3 MAWS.since everyone else has a non disposable anti tank option.

 

Also Remember than in maps  there re generally no more than 2 Tanks per side. This isnt large scale armored warfare. 

 

 

 also to state Most Direct hit agtms dont have enough power  to penetrate  most MBT's.  frontally in a single hit given Composite arrays provide far more effective protection vs SHaped charge warheads than  Kintectic Energy. . That doesnt mean invulnerability.  IRL there is armor degradation and it would take several hits, but eventually the armor will be compromised. 

 

 

Thats why Top down attack  guided  anti tanks  became a thing. Javelins are are planned for squad if im not mistaken.

Quote

 

Because that is what is going to meet the Abrams. To compensate for the shortcomings of the tanks the russian side would have deployed vast numbers of ATGM:s, both infantry and vehicle born. Same thing with the insurgents. It would not be 40 v 40, it would be 40 v 4000. A certain amount of balance is still needed for the game to work. You cannot add all kind of stuff for the US if you dont add something to counter it with for the other side. If you for ex add attack choppers then you will also need Anti air like stingers to counter them with.

 

If anything feels a bit wierd post on your behalf , besides none of that is necessary.  I never suggested anything 1 sided.

 

 

 

Whilst the proposed  changes here would make tanks more Lethal against each other , on the other These changes in the thread would  would make tanks  more vulnerable. to anti tank weapons, on the flanks in particular. and Both T72B3 and M1A2 tank  shouldeach other anyways with ammo they have , especially at the sort of ranges they fight at squad.. Tanks arent slugging it out at 2-4KM away from each other.   thats only when the inequaliy would really reveal itslef. And if that ever occured, then it would just be a matter of considering a more powerfull tank which was suggested here.

 

Both M829A4 and 3bm60 are the most modern APFSDS those respective tanks can field.

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately this thread has really veered off course, all of this talk of armor , and ammo interaction would be more suited for this thread 

 

 

 

 

The topic was originally about whether or not M892A4 was accurate for an earlier m1A2 iteration than the SEP V3 

On 11/24/2018 at 9:41 AM, Vewt said:

The M829A4 was designed for the M1A2SEP, but the gun systems for the two tanks are virtually identical. The only missing thing is the datalink, which shouldn't stop the A4 from being firable. Otherwise the breach, barrel and firing system are identical afaik.

 

Good catches though.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brightnight said:

Ehh, its more complicated than that. Armor values are highly classified and the best we have is estimates given by experts. Just to make a few points

 

A. Technically, the best APFSDS round used by Russia is Vaccum-1, which is being used by T-14.

B. You state that it can't penetrate the frontal armor of an Abrams, but then list two areas where it can.

1. Different parts of the Abram's frontal armor has different values. The M1A2 SEP has a glacis rating of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT. Frontal turret rating of  940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620  vs HEAT. And a lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT. (According to  Steven  J. Zaloga. Dont know the distances used to estimate)           C. You are stating that M829A4 can pen a T-90 (Don't know the values for the A variant. M variant is much better protected than all other Russian T-series tanks.) anywhere at under 2km. Yes, that is true. But you don't apply the same for the T-72 which you only give its RHA at 2km. Under 2km, its clearly going to penetrate more (basic physics). Given that most engagements in Squad between tanks is well within 2km. (Usually 300m lol) I would say theres a pretty good chance of a T-72 obr. 2016 penning the frontal armor of an M1A2 and vice versa.

 

 

So yes, The T-72 would have a hard time penetrating the frontal armor of an Abrams but its not impossible as you state. (I mean, you dont even really say that as you give an example of two parts of the frontal armor that CAN be penetrated) Also, note that I said NATO hulls. The Russian military doesn't expect to take on any Abrams in Eastern Europe. They plan on meeting Polish Leopard 2A4s and A5s, which are frankly poorer designs with thinner armor where it matters. (Fight me Leoboos)

 

While its true most modern armor is classified and all vary on estimates, 

 

I think we can pretty confidently agree that the the M829A4 would totally make mincemeat of the T72B3 frontal protection even at ranges beyond 2km,   simply because its a modernization of a T72B, and its armor isn't secret anymore. At least not in terms of construction.

 

US Army had In post Cold war era Tested and evaluated T-72B's. in early 2000s, then they bought 2 T80UD's from Ukraine for evaluation. SO the armor properties of these tanks and Kontact 5 era is well know, and hence why M829A3 was not only designed, but  proven to entirely negate Kontact 5 based on testing against such protection.

 

Lots of Cutaways of the T72Bs turret and Glacis array ( Mod 85) available on the internet  ( including ones from a T7B3 in maintenance) ,  including composite measurements. from that there can be assumed to be  very accurate  estimates on its protection .  Knowing how the M829A3 is tested to be  proven to able to bybass Kontact 5 due to its  tip design , we know that main  penetrator energy is going to only focus its energy  the main armor without degradation from ERA .  

M829A4 is designed to deal with newer types of era like Relikt, so id say that even a T90M probably wouldn't be expected to tank any shots from an Abrams, certainly not within a few hundred meters where a good chunk tank combat within this game takes place., although with this latter example this is more speculative  admittedly.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Brightnight said:

Currently the real issues are with ATGMs. That armor values are all over the place with that shit. Can't even pen the turret bustle of an Abrams or the back of a T72 with a Kornet or TOW, its getting ridiculous fam.


Yea I agree. AGTMS are very inconsistent . Id say all on all the Flanks ( rear and sides) of tanks should be much more vulnerable in general within squad than they currently are.

 

21 hours ago, Brightnight said:

The devs need to choose between the B3 obr. 2011 or the B3. obr 2016. The current model in-game looks like a hybrid of both. I personally think, for balancing purposes, the B3 obr. 2016 would be better. It has a newer 2A46M-5 gun (Same as T-90MS) which is capable of firing Svinets-1 and Svinets-2, which can penetrate most NATO hull armor. 

 

May as well correct to fully represent the Obr 2016 or whats more commonly regarded as the T72B3M, but maybe they needed some artistic freedom as to avoid paying licensing fees. 

 

IRRC, the ingame  T72b3 is in fact  using 3bm60 APFSDS, and the modernized Reflecks agtm meaning it would be the 2A46M-5  125mm cannon . So for all intents and purposes its basically a T72B3M,  just with a wrong AAA Gun. as you said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked it up out of curiosity. Turns out, that the 2A46M-5 is present on ALL B3 models. Its not part of the upgrade package, which is very interesting.

 

B3 obr. 2016 only has a new engine, new PK PAN commanders sight, and new ERA. (As well as many other things)

 

What indicates that the devs are going for the 2016, at least cosmetically, is this extra ERA plate:

 

C8rSnbOWAAEF4Vm.jpg

 

I really only think the reason why many players regard the T-72B3 as being better in-game is because its so much smaller. The lower profile really helps in avoiding other tanks and vehicles. UE4 and UE3 games have shitty aliasing at long distances as well, the smaller the profile the harder it is to see on your screen. On top of all of that, its also hard to differentiate a T72 from an MTLB. The noise the Abrams makes is so distinct thanks to that gas turbine engine, that you could hear one from a mile away. There have been many times that I was expecting an MTLB to turn a corner and instead got rekt by three jackasses in T72

Edited by Brightnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brightnight said:

I just looked it up out of curiosity. Turns out, that the 2A46M-5 is present on ALL B3 models. Its not part of the upgrade package, which is very interesting.

 

B3 obr. 2016 only has a new engine, new PK PAN commanders sight, and new ERA. (As well as many other things)

 

What indicates that the devs are going for the 2016, at least cosmetically, is this extra ERA plate:

 

C8rSnbOWAAEF4Vm.jpg

 

I really only think the reason why many players regard the T-72B3 as being better in-game is because its so much smaller. The lower profile really helps in avoiding other tanks and vehicles. UE4 and UE3 games have shitty aliasing at long distances as well, the smaller the profile the harder it is to see on your screen. On top of all of that, its also hard to differentiate a T72 from an MTLB. The noise the Abrams makes is so distinct thanks to that gas turbine engine, that you could hear one from a mile away. There have been many times that I was expecting an MTLB to turn a corner and instead got rekt by three jackasses in T72

 

That is my impression also. The Abrams can easily kill the T-72 with one shot up to at least 17-1800 meters. The only part of the T-72 that it cannot penetrate is the turret front but a lot of people seems to aim there even at close range. The Abrams seems better protected and can reload faster. Its also a lot better in mobility. (Fix that so the T-72 can go up hills! ) But is also a lot bigger and easier to spot and hit. I guess that the big flat surfaces of the Abrams is easier to see on you screen at long distances. The T72 is a lot more broken up by the ERA-tiles etc and blends in with the background better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

 

That is my impression also. The Abrams can easily kill the T-72 with one shot up to at least 17-1800 meters. The only part of the T-72 that it cannot penetrate is the turret front but a lot of people seems to aim there even at close range. The Abrams seems better protected and can reload faster. Its also a lot better in mobility. (Fix that so the T-72 can go up hills! ) But is also a lot bigger and easier to spot and hit. I guess that the big flat surfaces of the Abrams is easier to see on you screen at long distances. The T72 is a lot more broken up by the ERA-tiles etc and blends in with the background better.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

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. 

Actually there is a spot on the front of the Abrams that if shot will almost 100% get a 1-shot cook-off. All you have to do is shoot vaguely where the barrel meets the turret and if it pens you hit the ammo in the turret and it auto cooks off lol. Also just shoot at the massive turret ring and it's all over lol  It's so bad. At least the T72 can go hull down to protect its ammo, abrams got nothing 

Edited by Adamsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×