tanks/vehicles 9P149 Shturm-S ATGM Carrier

[KontaKT 1,824]

Well thermobaric weapons.

Motors and fuel tanks are going to have a bad time.

[WulfPack 1,693]

38 minutes ago, Fighter117 said:

Well thermobaric weapons.

Motors and fuel tanks are going to have a bad time.

How effective would a thermobaric missile be?

[KontaKT 1,824]

That almost look like a small nuclear bomb.
 It covers large areas. You can see the same kind of lines around the radius.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Fighter117

[HardeKern 482]

please no, its cool but not compatible with ww2 tanks, tech is way to different! its like muskets vs swords. 

[WulfPack 1,693]

12 minutes ago, HardeKern said:

please no, its cool but not compatible with ww2 tanks, tech is way to different! its like muskets vs swords. 

Just going to ignore most of the 7.3+ tanks?

Edited September 21, 2016 by WulfPack

[WulfPack 1,693]

I should say that it's a possibility that the Shturm-S in the pictures/videos are equipped with the Ataka ATGM.

Edited September 22, 2016 by WulfPack

[ChrisXD62365 520]

11 hours ago, WulfPack said:

I should say that it's a possibility that the Shturm-S in the pictures/videos are equipped with the Ataka ATGM.

do you know russian?

[WulfPack 1,693]

57 minutes ago, ChrisXD62365 said:

do you know russian?

Why? They are all labeled as Shturm-S.

Edited September 22, 2016 by WulfPack

[ChrisXD62365 520]

55 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Why? They are all labeled as Shturm-S.

i'm just interested because there's a lot of links in russian on your other suggestions.

[The_Doctor_084 1,583]

Just a clarification from the first page the "Jaguar 1" is from the 70s, there is nothing coming in from the 1980s at all in 1.63 the misconception on that vehicle needs to stop.

[DreamADream4Me 2,838]

7 hours ago, RexLuporum said:

Just a clarification from the first page the "Jaguar 1" is from the 70s, there is nothing coming in from the 1980s at all in 1.63 the misconception on that vehicle needs to stop.

 

Very late 70's in fact. 77 or 79? And we talk of the 80's because it takes a LOOOOOOOONG time for a country to get any sort of significant/sufficient amount of vehicles of new build in service during peace time. Especially when we speak of Western Germany during the 70's when it was far from the world leader that it is now. Ironically built up by mostly Slavic workers.

[The_Doctor_084 1,583]

It's still incorrect production started in 1979 that's still not 1980 no matter how much you want it to be while pilot vehicles were done from 1972-76.  It's an incorrect distinction, it's not semantics.  On this vehicle it'd be interesting but two is enough for now I think if they need another this would work well though partially for it's amphibious nature.

[oXoP4NDEMiCZoXo 451]

+1 This would be a nice addition the Russian tech tree!

[_23nick123 53]

would be great if it came after the asu-85 in the light tree, then followed by the BMD or BMP-1 . +1

[Sy_A 42]

-1

[WulfPack 1,693]

11 minutes ago, _23nick123 said:

would be great if it came after the asu-85 in the light tree, then followed by the BMD or BMP-1 . +1

After the IT-1 in the TD line.

[_23nick123 53]

10 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

After the IT-1 in the TD line.

after? why? it seems worst in most regards- less armor, limited turret raverse, not as good fire rate, not as good gun depression. maybe it would be slightly faster?

 

[WulfPack 1,693]

4 minutes ago, _23nick123 said:

after? why? it seems worst in most regards- less armor, limited turret raverse, not as good fire rate, not as good gun depression. maybe it would be slightly faster?

 

The ATGM is better. The IT-1 isn't the best representative of Soviet self propelled ATGM development. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by WulfPack

[_23nick123 53]

5 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

The ATGM is better. The IT-1 isn't the best representative of Soviet self propelled ATGM development. 

how better? i mean, sure it has speed and maybe a bit more pen, maybe more explosive payload, but is it as good as the IT-1 with its fast rate of fire, armor, and full turret traverse?

[WulfPack 1,693]

1 minute ago, _23nick123 said:

how better? i mean, sure it has speed and maybe a bit more pen, maybe more explosive payload, but is it as good as the IT-1 with its fast rate of fire, armor, and full turret traverse?

That is the problem of bringing in the IT-1.

[_23nick123 53]

Just now, WulfPack said:

That is the problem of bringing in the IT-1.

i think it can still be added, but, it might be more suited in the light tanks line. compared to the IT-1, and TD line as a whole, it is faster and more mobile but 0 armor. 

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 minutes ago, _23nick123 said:

i think it can still be added, but, it might be more suited in the light tanks line. compared to the IT-1, and TD line as a whole, it is faster and more mobile but 0 armor. 

No. Russia has options that are far better suited for being at the end of the LT line.

On 9/20/2016 at 1:57 PM, WulfPack said:

This was/is used by dedicated anti-tank units.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by WulfPack

[_23nick123 53]

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

No. Russia has options that are far better suited for being at the end of the LT line.

 

alright.

[WulfPack 1,693]

32 minutes ago, _23nick123 said:

alright.

Using the IT-1 as a basis. the only other option would be the T-64 with the Drakon ATGM.

[Kazumi_ 6,575]

41 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Using the IT-1 as a basis. the only other option would be the T-64 with the Drakon ATGM.

Which we won't get.