tanks/vehicles Experimentaleintwicklung Kampfpanzer Keiler (leo 2 EARLY, EARLY prototype)

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

 

T64?... mhhh

Edited February 8, 2017 by dotEXCEL

[Necrons31467 14,236]

'' BMP, BMD - very probable ''

 

 

Awesome, let's get some IFV's.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

That's why the people here suggested a far greater BR spread.

Everybody wants that but its not happening. Those vehicles would end up at 10.0 BR sealclubbing current bests.

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Firstly, those aren't 90's tanks.

 

Secondly, we're already FAR beyond the mid-50's.

Firstly yes they are. Military technolgy development is slower during peace and thaings as Abrams, Leo 2, T-80 are still used today

 

Secondly did you even understood what i wrote ? I said i dont want tanks to get too modern in comparison everything else (planes ships etc) because thay will never go any further than 50'.

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

No they're not, the vehicles listed are either prototypes or long since out-dated variants.

I admit i wasn't clear at that one. Sure not exactly those but their variants are.

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Which we already have.

Because of game mechanics, gun following aiming circle from certain poit of view all tanks in game have them.

 

I was thinking about this sort of gun stabilizing:

Can you imagine being accurately hit by a 120mm APFSDS on the move ?

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Yes, because that is totally relevant in War Thunder.

But it wasn't in real life something that game is trying to mimic and it would be important factor in ant WW 3 like conflict.

 

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

War Thunder has never been a WW2 only game.

And i never said it ever been. I said it would be like having FPS game when "Sub Machine Guns Players" are allowed to use only ww2 weapons but "Assault Rifle Players are allowed to use modern weaponry". Translating into War Thunder language Pilots can use only 50' late 50' stuff but tankers can use 80' stuff. Is that simple enough now ?

 

5 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

That's why they're suggesting vehicles for every nation, a MBT-70 (United States) vs Kpz-70 (Germany) vs T-72 Ural (Sovjet Union) vs Chieftain Mk. 10 (United Kingdom) line-up would be pretty decently balanced, they could be implemented just fine at a BR of 9.3.

You don't even realize what monster you're about to wake up. Nobody can challange Soviets in their Cold war tank designs even with prototypes. Thats why NATO, primerly USA invested so much money into Air Force a balancing factor in favor of NATO that we will never get because of game technical limitations ! It is commonly known fact that Soviet union had great tanks and there were moments in time during cold war when Western tanks may not be able to stop eventual Soviet invasion with Tanks vs Tanks combat only.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Wilhuff_Tarkin_

[Josh_Yong 328]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

Whoa there, did you know that the EE-T1 with the 120mm was chosen over the M1A2 by the Saudis at one point only for Brazil to back off all of a sudden? You're underestimating that tank I believe.

Where did you read that? Wasn't the M1A2 chosen due to the performance of the M1A1 in the Gulf War and the US-Saudi Relationship? 

[Nope 10,634]

19 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Or these numbers (wouldn't be surprised if these are off by up to 100mm):

 

Chieftain Mk. 5/Chieftain Mk.10/Leopard 1A6/Kpz-Keiler

• Gun: L11A5 120mm rifled
• RM-120 120mm smoothbore
• L15 APDS (penetration: 379mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L23 APFSDS (penetration: 355mm+ RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L26 APFSDS (penetration: 450mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L27 APFSDS (penetration: 700mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L37 APFSDS (penetration: 150mm??? RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• DM-12 HEAT-T (penetration: 583mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-13/23 APFSDS-T (penetration: 380mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-33 APFSDS-T (penetration: 550mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-43/43A1 APFSDS-T (penetration: 560mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/120ammo.htm

 

No. Don't use those values. Look at the source it comes from. It comes from Collins's or Bob's page, which are values for a tabletop war game and have no scientific credibility whatsoever. Never use those values. The values I calculated were for point-blank, not 2 km, and the Lanz-Odermatt equation is based off actual tests.

 

31 minutes ago, Josh_Yong said:

Where did you read that? Wasn't the M1A2 chosen due to the performance of the M1A1 in the Gulf War and the US-Saudi Relationship? 

 

Not initially, though I was wrong and it was chosen over the M1A1, thus meaning that it was at least on the same level.

 

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1130

 

Quote

The detail design of the tank began in mid-1983 and by September of 1984, an automotive test-bed was running. The first (or P1) prototype was completed in July of 1985 and was almost immediately transferred to Saudi Arabia for initial trials. The second (or P2) prototype, the one developed specifically for the Saudi requirement, was completed in July of 1987; it was also sent to Saudi Arabia for trials. This  latter tank, called Al-Fahd, competed against several other tanks including the M1A1 and Challenger for the Saudi contract. In early 1989, both tanks were back in Brazil; later that year, it was announced that Saudi Arabia would procure 315 Al-Fahd tanks. However, no contract was ever signed before the firm went bankrupt.

 

Basically the Osorio won the contract, but then the company went bankrupt and so couldn't send out that many tanks. Some even say it stomped the competing tanks in most areas, but I have yet to check whether that's BR propaganda. After the Gulf War, the Saudis were sold on the Abrams, and so bought the M1A2. Do not underestimate the EE-T1 with the 120mm smoothbore. That thing is actually really damn good given that Saudi Arabia likes to purchase the expensive stuff just because they can.

[Kocyra 5,742]

10 hours ago, Nope said:

 

But it uses APCBC, which has significantly worse slope coefficients.

But the T-10M still has very impressive performance none the less, and this thing would be that but much better, even not being converted from the soviet penetration standard, (it'd give it 5-10% better values in-game if hypothetically added

 

44 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

No. Don't use those values. Look at the source it comes from. It comes from Collins's or Bob's page, which are values for a tabletop war game and have no scientific credibility whatsoever. Never use those values. The values I calculated were for point-blank, not 2 km, and the Lanz-Odermatt equation is based off actual tests.

 

These values are in the general area of penetration, Though there is margin of error I'd say 150mm +/- but they are roughly around there

[Results45 2,200]

Just now, F7UCutlass said:

But the T-10M still has very impressive performance none the less, and this thing would be that but much better, even not being converted from the soviet penetration standard, (it'd give it 5-10% better values in-game if hypothetically added

 

 

T-10M has 400mm HEAT-FS. Obj. 279 could get the same (at best).

[Kocyra 5,742]

Just now, Results45 said:

 

T-10M has 400mm HEAT-FS. Obj. 279 could get the same (at best).

279 has an entirely different cannon. I don't think it ever had HEAT-FS made for it

[Results45 2,200]

7 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

279 has an entirely different cannon. I don't think it ever had HEAT-FS made for it

 

T-10 had the D-25T. T-10M and Object 279 both had M-6X series guns so I would assume they could fire similar ammo.......

 

edit: Object 770 (improved IS-7/T-10M), Object 277, and Object 278 also used the M-65 so it would make sense that all predecessors to the T-10M be capable of firing HEAT-FS

Edited February 8, 2017 by Results45

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

11 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

T-10 had the D-25T. T-10M and Object 279 both had M-6X series guns so I would assume they could fire similar ammo.......

The Object 279 has a 130mm while the T-10M has a 122mm, I don't see how you can just assume they have similar ammunition.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

• T-64 still possible but not now
• They have planed vehicle list for 1 year ahead

Wow, I guess the Keiler is confirmed then ^^

[Retry 7,363]

18 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

• T-64 still possible but not now
• They have planed vehicle list for 1 year ahead

Wow, I guess the Keiler is confirmed then ^^

How does "T-64 Maybe" (which could just be Obj. 430) translate to "Keiler Yes"?

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

T-10 had the D-25T. T-10M and Object 279 both had M-6X series guns so I would assume they could fire similar ammo.......

 

edit: Object 770 (improved IS-7/T-10M), Object 277, and Object 278 also used the M-65 so it would make sense that all predecessors to the T-10M be capable of firing HEAT-FS

The ammunition for the M-62 CANNOT be fired from the M-65. They did test APDS for the M-65 but those modified guns were never fitted to any tanks. I'm not aware of HEAT-FS for the M-65.

[Nope 10,634]

11 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

These values are in the general area of penetration, Though there is margin of error I'd say 150mm +/- but they are roughly around there

 

I don't know, but 25%+ deviation is completely unacceptable given that the formula prior to the Lanz-Odermatt equation was rejected for a far lower margin of error than that past a certain L/D. And this is for point-blank values with really soft steel (BHN would normally be maybe 270-400) vs 2 km values. And you call that in the "general area of penetration"?

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

8 hours ago, Retry said:

How does "T-64 Maybe" (which could just be Obj. 430) translate to "Keiler Yes"?

 

Every time Gaijin has said, that something will be possible to be in the game, but not now, it has come at some point or another. ATGMs, Hunter, Leopards, T62s... That's the problem with content, that's bound to reality. It's limited in availability, since they can't just make up anything...

[arczer25 5,202]

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Every time Gaijin has said, that something will be possible to be in the game, but not now, it has come at some point or another. ATGMs, Hunter, Leopards, T62s... That's the problem with content, that's bound to reality. It's limited in availability, since they can't just make up anything...

you would be surprised, at last there is still community.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Wat?

[Ta_Kanata18 1,109]

30 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Wat?

Community voices matter recently there is H8K2 and Type-62 HEATFS

Edited February 9, 2017 by Ta_Kanata18

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Yes, they do. But not if it hinders Gaijin from implementing new content, that will bring new players to the game. And while it could be argued, that the Keiler would drive people away from the game, Gaijin will decide themselves if it is worth the risk...

[arczer25 5,202]

10 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Yes, they do. 1. But not if it hinders Gaijin from implementing new content, that will bring new players to the game. And while it could be argued, that the Keiler would drive people away from the game, 2. Gaijin will decide themselves if it is worth the risk...

1. but won't keep them for long, or even stop working like right now...

2. "worth the risk" in $$$

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Of course. Do you think Gaijin exists, because the devs are so passionate about creating a game that so many people like? Excuse me, but that is really naive... 

The SOLE PURPOSE Gaijin and therefore War Thunder exist is to make money. That's the purpose of any company for that matter. So please. Be realistic and don't think that they are going to stick to their cutoff dates or technology limits. 

[arczer25 5,202]

3 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Of course. Do you think Gaijin exists, because the devs are so passionate about creating a game that so many people like? Excuse me, but that is really naive... 

The SOLE PURPOSE Gaijin and therefore War Thunder exist is to make money. That's the purpose of any company for that matter. So please. Be realistic and don't think that they are going to stick to their cutoff dates or technology limits. 

im realistic... just spamming new content brings most money in shortest time with is what Gaijin do ATM, but that's not what keep players compared polishing product and fixes with give less $$$ in current moment.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

You are giving answers to your own questions. Making the most money in the shortest time is all a company is supposed to do.

[arczer25 5,202]

6 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

You are giving answers to your own questions. Making the most money in the shortest time is all a company is supposed to do.

i didn't questioned anything:

 

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

1. but won't keep them for long, or even stop working like right now...

2. "worth the risk" in $$$

 

 

[Solid_Snake01 974]

Bad news is if the T-64 comes in the game you got to remember to use Sabot against it because HEAT is useless against composite armor.