Jump to content

Schützenpanzer Marder 1A3


dotEXCEL
 Share

Marder 1  

308 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you wanna see it ingame?

    • YES
      278
    • No, why
      30


4 minutes ago, Retry said:

Devs themselves said they're not wanting to go out of the late 70s or so.  Cutoff.

 

Please do link me to where they stated there being a 1980's cut-off date, not that it matters, because as already established they don't follow that cut-off date since they're considering the Type-87 (and the Type-87 specifically), in addition to already having 1980's ammunition and 1980's ERA packages eligble for implementation.

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Please do link me to where they stated there being a 1980's cut-off date, not that it matters, because as already established they don't follow that cut-off date since they're consudering the Type-87 (and the Type-87 specifically), in addition to already having 1980's ammunition and 1980's ERA packages eligble for implementation.

They mention not wanting to go past late 70s early 80s in the Dev Answers.

 

I don't even care about that damn cutoff anymore, stop it with the Type 87 crap.  They can't implement it, its data is not released for the public and uses a later Type 74 hull that could have elements of Composite.

 

They'll get a Type 63 SPAAG prototype, period.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

An excuse for the BMD-3? I'll take that. 

What of the penetration of its autocannon by the way?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

Firing APFSDS was 60 mm @ 1,000 m (60°), IIRC.

Ouch.  Is that angle perpendicular or parallel to the plate?

If perpendicular, that could possibly pen a Leopard at point blank.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Retry said:

Ouch.  Is that angle perpendicular or parallel to the plate?

If perpendicular, that could possibly pen a Leopard at point blank.

 

As in 0° being vertical. But the APFSDS is a bit time travel-ish. AP-T and AP(HE)-T would be more common, being 30-ish mm @ 1,000 m (60°).

 

Edit: But it's this that you really have to be concerned about:

 

6.jpg

Edited by Choogleblitz
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Choogleblitz said:

 

As in 0° being vertical. But the APFSDS is a bit time travel-ish. AP-T and AP(HE)-T would be more common, being 30-ish mm @ 1,000 m (60°).

 

Did the 100mm utilize any HEAT ammunition or was it HE-Frag only?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Did the 100mm utilize any HEAT ammunition or was it HE-Frag only?

 

I'm assuming you mean the 2A70 on the BMP? In which case, HE and ATGM's were the only ammunition serviced. But then again... The Fable missile was long available before the Marder 1A3, so gib BMP-3 (750 mm post-ERA).

Edited by Choogleblitz
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Did the 100mm utilize any HEAT ammunition or was it HE-Frag only?

Think it was HE shells and Gun-launcher ATGM missiles.

Anyways, look at what you've done: This topic has summoned the mighty Choogleblitz!

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can find it's got around 85mm of penetration at 10 metres and 0°, 35mm of penetration at 60° at 1000 metres, the missiles have 550 or 750mm of penetration depending on the variant and the vehicles.

 

The frontal armour also seems rather good for an IFV:

 

10mm of high hardness steel followed by an air gap then followed by the main 60mm aluminum hull, from statements on it being designed to withstand any 25 and 30mm IFV cannons aswell as 155mm shrapnel from all sides it's probably going to have around 90mm of effective hull armour fromt he front I'd say, 40 or so from the sides, with fuel tanks directly behind the frontal plate making it likely even more survivable.

 

It also seems to carry more ATGM's than the Marder does, though I can't find an exact figure.... *looking at Choogle*

 

 

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

Firing APFSDS was 60 mm @ 1,000 m (60°), IIRC.

Wasn't APDS the only russian round that would be logical within the time-frame?

 

Also I'd rather prefer BMD-2 because it's cuter XD


Also I am very curious about performance of the 2A42, Do you have the source for these values?

Edited by F7UCutlass
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recall using some kind of BMP-3 in RD.  Could never get mine to hit anything with those missiles despite its alleged high accuracy, although once I missed a 5 pt APC only to hit a 100 pt command jeep that I couldn't see 1000 meters outside of its technical maximum range.  It was one hell of a miss, anyways.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

It also seems to carry more ATGM's than the Marder does, though I can't find an exact figure.... *looking at Choogle*

 

4 for the BMD-3.

8 for the BMP-3 (although you can switch out regular ammunition with ATGM's, IIRC).

 

20 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Wasn't APDS the only russian round that would be logical within the time-frame?

 

Russians only had AP and AP(HE). They worked together with Rheinmetal and... some Belgian company later on and they ended up not using either of their cooperation and fielded their own APFSDS. 

 

20 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

 


Also I am very curious about performance of the 2A42, Do you have the source for these values?

 

Just trying to remember values from Domestic Armoured Vehicles magazine articles. 

 

19 minutes ago, Retry said:

Recall using some kind of BMP-3 in RD.  Could never get mine to hit anything with those missiles despite its alleged high accuracy, although once I missed a 5 pt APC only to hit a 100 pt command jeep that I couldn't see 1000 meters outside of its technical maximum range.  It was one hell of a miss, anyways.

 

That's because everything short of a Scout Bradley has a baboon at the controls of the missile in WGRD. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

Russians only had AP and AP(HE). They worked together with Rheinmetal and... some Belgian company later on and they ended up not using either of their cooperation and fielded their own APFSDS. 

Just trying to remember values from Domestic Armoured Vehicles magazine articles. 

The Belgian APFSDS round has 55mm at 1000 metres listed, though it doesn't say what angle of attack, I'm assuming 55mm at 60 degrees at 1000 metres like you said, but I never knew there was a Russian-only 30mm APFSDS

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, blakeob said:

Moved to further discussion. :salute:

Damn.  If this thing can hit Further Discussion perhaps Choogle could actually suggest the BMP/D-1...

42 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Wasn't APDS the only russian round that would be logical within the time-frame?

According to whatshisname, there is no timeframe anymore, just a techframe.  If APDSFS for a 30mm isn't outside the techframe, then it's in.

 

Edited by Retry
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Retry said:

Damn.  If this thing can hit Further Discussion perhaps Choogle could actually suggest the BMP/D-1...

According to whatshisname, there is no timeframe anymore, just a techframe.  If APDSFS for a 30mm isn't outside the techframe, then it's in.

 

Fair enough then I suppose. What even counts as "too far" for tech anyways. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, F7UCutlass said:

Fair enough then I suppose. What even counts as "too far" for tech anyways. 

Since we're apparently adding IFVs, what say we modify the MBT meta to M1 Abrams/Leopard 2/Challie 1/Type 74 Spam vs T-64/T-72/T-80 variants at BR 10.0 or something?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Fair enough then I suppose. What even counts as "too far" for tech anyways. 

The tech limits we know about for tanks is mainly stuff like composite armour.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Retry said:

Damn.  If this thing can hit Further Discussion perhaps Choogle could actually suggest the BMP/D-1...

 

1:09

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Retry said:

According to whatshisname, there is no timeframe anymore, just a techframe.  If APDSFS for a 30mm isn't outside the techframe, then it's in.

 

From what I recall, the tech limits are as follows:

 

Afterburners (and generally aircraft that go beyond the sound barrier without much trouble)

Self-guided missiles (be it air-to-air, ground-to-air or air-to-ground)

Fire control systems (or anything that removes part of the skill involved with player controlled aiming)

Laser rangefinders (or any form of rangefinding equipment that requires little to no player imput)

Advanced protection packages (though now ERA seems to be acceptable I guess? I dunno)

 

2 minutes ago, Retry said:

Since we're apparently adding IFVs, what say we modify the MBT meta to M1 Abrams/Leopard 2/Challie 1/Type 74 Spam vs T-64/T-72/T-80 variants at BR 10.0 or something?

 

 

Meh, IMHO they could easily start off by having the T-64A, T-72, MBT-70, Kpz-70 and Chieftain Mk. 10 (or some other more advnaced variant on it, perhaps a Challenger testbed or something), that's also about as far as we can go with composites since any further than that it's pretty much guess-work on the armour, though with the Sovjets we know armour related stuff a bit further than with western tanks (up to the T-80U I'd say).

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

(or some other more advnaced variant on it, perhaps a Challenger testbed or something)

So the Shir 2? That's the closest thing you can get to a Challenger 1 test bed, but it does not have the 120mm APFSDS that something like the Chieftain Mk 10 would have.

Edited by Mercedes4321
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Retry said:

Since we're apparently adding IFVs, what say we modify the MBT meta to M1 Abrams/Leopard 2/Challie 1/Type 74 Spam vs T-64/T-72/T-80 variants at BR 10.0 or something?

Exactly, Early variants have some values out there for armor protection, though they're just "X value vs X, Y value vs Y" sorta thing so it'd be up to gaijin to do some math to figure out the armor.

dCXqVCH.jpg

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Exactly, Early variants have some values out there for armor protection, though they're just "X value vs X, Y value vs Y" sorta thing so it'd be up to gaijin to do some math to figure out the armor.

WAR THUNDER

PATCH 1.71

BACK TO THE FUTURE

soon_635dc9_4823588.jpg

Edited by Retry
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...