milivoje02 wrote: ↑
May 25 2020
About Leopard manufacturer( https://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehi ... ation.html
) 2a7,2a7+,2a7++,3 I would like to see at least some variant of them in the game. Generally the Leopard 2a4 is the most common model from the Leopard 2 family and he is not in the game.
T 72 have automatic loader but manual fire control sistemy.
This means that the cannon must be manually turned towards the target. Which gives it infeeriority in the fight against more modern technologies. Therefore Abramas and m 84 were superior to this variant t 72 in Golf war. And In the fight against the US army, its superiority in the air, which is unquestionable, cannot be neglected. One of the main differences between t 72 and m 84 is that m 84 has an automated fire control system, which means it can lock the target faster.
Chassi of t 72 i think that she has experienced so many improvements that they cannot be counted. Do you know that the t 90 has a prototype mak T 72 BU?
I generally don't see how much far that chassis can be improved ... Probably that's why the Armata has a delay in development. because it is a completely new chassis.
As for k2, I'm not very familiar with South Korean tanks, maybe it wouldn't be a bad practice for someone to sometimes say that they are less familiar with something. let's say now I'm going to take your information as initial information when I start researching South Korean tanks.
Did you do anything with the map editor?
I'm looking for some good place in the middle of the ocean on the map to put the pirate state. Do you have any suggestion.
Personally I find it interesting that there is only one variant of the Leopard 1 (the A4). That was produced roughly a decade after the A1 model and it is the first tank Germany gets after the E-50. Also it is fairly close to the introduction of the Leopard 2A1. Given however that we only have the 2A3 of the early models of Leopard that does leave a gap between them as that is over half a decade later than the initial production version of the Leopard 2. It's actually a bit funny how we get as many early Panzer II-IV models from 36-39 as we do get Leopard tanks.
One of the reasons for the renaming was that the abysmal Iraqi performance with their export T-72 or local lookalikes where making export sales difficult.
In general if you want examples of relatively new tanks with autoloaders outside Russia and France's Leclerc you probably want to go to eastern Asia. The PRC pretty much exclusively uses autoloaders (though getting reliable information can be hard) as does the before-mentioned ROK K2 Black Panther. The Japanese Type 10 also uses an autoloader and japan in general have gone with autoloaders since the end of the cold war (the exception being the Type 16 Tank Destroyer).
Iran also appears to go with autoloaders but it tends to be hard to find reliable information about them. Also looking at vehicles like the Karrar I am not sure they have really gotten beyond the "copy others" phase of tank design.
I have actually never really used the map editor but if you want a decent place far from land there is always point Nemo. You can also call it "Risen R'lyeh" or something. The southern Indian ocean is probably likewise a good spot.
Zuikaku wrote: ↑
May 26 2020
Nerei wrote: ↑
May 25 2020
Heck that the piece of trash T-55 Enigma have the same ground defence as a M1A1 Abrams really indicates you should not judge too much on stats.
Are you not confusing T-55 Enigma with Assad Babil. Enigma had decent survivability and there are known cases where it survived multiple hellfire hits.
On the other hand, Assad Babil was a trash in every way.
During the battle of Khafji one unit is reported to have survived several hits from MILAN missiles (which can knock out a T-72M1 frontwise) before being dispatched by a helicopter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55 ... iants#Iraq
Whilst it is generally accepted that Enigmas could survive some hits from ATGMs, they could, however, not survive hits from AMX 30s, or an AC-130 gunship strike:
The problem with the enigma above all else is that it is a crude construct using primitive materials. Sure it is not comparable to the Syrian civil war where additional armour might be concrete blocks or spent shell casings but it is still not good. The craftsmanship is not exactly great and likely neither is the materials used.
This is not exactly the Saddam Hussein version of the Leopard 2 Revolution for the T-55.
Sure it might have better protection than the Asad Babil but that is not really saying that much.
Also we should keep in mind that the Asad Babil is likely made in workshops similar to those that made the Enigma armour kit. Really the saving grace of the Enigma is that it was build on a few decades old tanks and not something Iraq built in the late 1980's
Sidenote: Speaking of the Asad Babil to the game it is notably better protected than a 1st and 2nd generation Merkava as well as the M1 Abrams. That is quite absurd.
Going by the tank encyclopedia article some Enigmas did not even feature rubber sheets in the add-on armour meaning it is basically just spaced steel plates. Chances are a simple cage armour might be better in a lot of cases then.
Also apparently ATGM hits can knock the added armour off the vehicle meaning each hit might very well make a large part of the vehicle vulnerable. In that case each of these huge blocks can be thought off as ERA.
Said article also states that while it might survive a hit by a Milan it is probably not something you should count on. It is entirely possible the vehicle in question that survived multiple hits where just really lucky. The problem is the sample size is small and overall documentation is lacking.
The article conclusion likewise states that the enigma is not comparable to coalition vehicles such as the AMX-30 yet in-game it has better hard attack and ground defence than the AMX-30 meaning in a duel it would likely win. Also it is as good in protection as the best the US can throw at it in 1991 meaning the saving grace for the M1A1 when fighting Enigmas are the higher hard attack.
Ultimately however the Enigma is only incidental to my core argument. I could just as well have picked a Pz 68 and compared it to a Challenger I. Like the Enigma vs the M1A1 Abrams the Pz 68 has a amazing ground defence compared to the Challenger I. It actually beat the far more modern and arguably far better protected Challenger I by 2 points in (36 vs 34) and 7 points in close defence (24 vs 17). I could also compare the ground defence of the aforementioned 1st and 2nd generation Merkavas to a Basic T-55, T-62, the entire Patton or Centurion line and they would lose in pretty much all cases.
Speaking of the Centurion it is also a good example. The Olifant 1A despite basically retaining the protection of the 1940's Centurion from which it is based beats anything used in Desert Storm in ground defence as well as the mk.III Merkava and M1A2 Abrams. It's descendant the Olifant 2 is even better as ot beats anything real-world Israel, the US, Britain, France, Japan or Korea has. The best German Leopards only beat it by 1 point in ground defence. For the record it also retains the Centurion era armour though with composite armour bolted onto it.
I can actually seriously argue that an upgraded 1950's Centurion is one of the best protected real world vehicles in the game.
Yes the Enigma makes perfect sense when compared with the 1958 T-55 design as it gains 3 ground defence which in that situation is perfectly logical but that is part of the problem and why this is not an easy problem to solve. The enigma makes perfect sense against some vehicles but are horribly broken against others when compared to the real world. It is not just change it X points and the issue goes away. Likewise the Olifants are perfectly fine when compared to the Centurions from which it is derived compared to modern MBT's like the Merkava, Leopard, Abrams or Challenger lines it is horribly broken in ground defence.
Really a lot of stats appear to have been set in a vacuum with it only being compared to closely related designs and not how it stands compared to the wider set of designs. That might work if there is a master template system but chances are there where not and a lot of designs where originally defined with little comparison between them and the problem just propagated from there.
Sure we can make the argument for game balance but if that is the argument we can look at other designs like the Sejong the Great class destroyers that completely obliterates the category air defence warship as this 2006 design is basically the best in the category followed by the 1990's Arleigh Burkes. Yes that includes all fictive, futuristic warships. A Balancing factor though is that it is a notable worse submarine hunter than say a 1971 Kresta II for some unknown reason.
So going back to my original argument that we cannot determine any fundamental logic based on stats like ground defence I think that argument stands. Actually the more I look at the unit database the more do I think it holds.