73 replies to this topic

[Vikesh]

 tritri08, on Jan 18 2012 - 10:23, said:

Most weapons, were produced by Russian ,are useful in large numbers. Many wars proved it, but american weapons are better in technique, quality. Plzz stop talking about export versions, no one want to buy a monkey tank or something like that.

Everyone wants a monkey model. Proof? Look at how many Type 59s we have these days in-game.

[Lunaris]

Type 59 is a copy, not monkey model.

Monkey model downgraded version for export so when it used against you you still have advantage and if captured by third party it will not give the correct specification of your own stuff.

[selcooper]

Wow children


Despite the beam being narrow, it will eventually spread over long distances due to the divergence of the laser beam, as well as due to scintillation and beam wander effects, caused by the presence of air bubbles in the air acting as lenses ranging in size from microscopic to roughly half the height of the laser beam's path above the earth.

These atmospheric distortions coupled with the divergence of the laser itself and with transverse winds that serve to push the atmospheric heat bubbles laterally may combine to make it difficult to get an accurate reading of the distance of an object, say, beneath some trees or behind bushes, or even over long distances of more than 1 km in open and unobscured desert terrain.

Some of the laser light might reflect off leaves or branches which are closer than the object, giving an early return and a reading which is too low. Alternatively, over distances longer than 1200 ft (365 m), the target, if in proximity to the earth, may simply vanish into a mirage, caused by temperature gradients in the air in proximity to the heated surface bending the laser light. All these effects have to be taken into account.

The chances that the beam would be good out to 8km is very doubtful!!!!!!!!!!!   I am a surveyor and I use lasers for accurate measurement and ours can not go that far..... not to mention you need a clear line of sight and shiny reflective surface..  (oh yeah I am a tanker too)

I have heard of in test situations that the laser can be shot that far and a reading received but these are under ideal test conditions and I do not believe that unless you are in desert without and heat waves or refraction of the wave

[blurr91]

 djuice1701, on Jan 14 2012 - 18:06, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ser_beam_riding

Much lesser chance of been detected then that of a direct laser designator, since the beam does not directly focus at a target, but it performs much more like a directional pointer. Beam riders also has their guidance located at the rear of the missile unlike the S-A laser which are located at the front.

Smoke?

[Nodbugger]

 selcooper, on Jan 19 2012 - 13:40, said:

The chances that the beam would be good out to 8km is very doubtful!!!!!!!!!!!   I am a surveyor and I use lasers for accurate measurement and ours can not go that far..... not to mention you need a clear line of sight and shiny reflective surface..  (oh yeah I am a tanker too)

I have a few of these sitting on top of my trucks that would beg to differ.

http://www.strategyp...long_range.aspx

They are basically the same same system in a Bradley or Abrams.

[tritri08]

 Vikesh, on Jan 18 2012 - 14:15, said:

Everyone wants a monkey model. Proof? Look at how many Type 59s we have these days in-game.

Oh no, Type 59 in game not in real life !!!  Sino war 1979, Gulf war, how many type 59 lost. Game is game. Something like E 100, Mauss, Kv 5 were scrap metals in WW 2

[tritri08]

 Ketnix, on Jan 18 2012 - 10:39, said:

What are you talking about "no one wants a monkey model". Everyone wants monkey models. Hell even America sells watered down versions of the Abrams to Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, Australia. Essentially all these watered down Abrams are monkey models, a downgrade to the regular models America uses. And thats not even me going into Soviet gear that nations still buy that are inferior to the home models.

They want monkey model because they can not make it.

[Gohibniu]

Track record, bud.  No comparison.  Abrams.

[RithMatic]

 Soldier360, on Dec 04 2011 - 11:47, said:

T-90 was never used in a major war so u cannot tell how good or bad T-90 is yet while the M1 Abrams has been battle tested and has proven to be a tough opponent against the Iraqi T-72's ,T-62's and T-55's.The Abrams is a tough tank but its still not indestructible.At least 4 Abrams were destroyed during Operation Desert Storm.

Its funny how u say abrams is proven to be a better tank because of iraq war, they had old soviet era tanks and poor tactics
gj

[Giganaut]

let me set to another scenario.


a T-90 and the M1a3 Abrams, both fitted with the same abrams gun.

place them both on an endurance test, all the way to kill the other target, without any uav or any 'eyes in the sky' or even satellite assistance.
one more thing no refueling. and no ammo restock or any sort of replenishing/ refilling  

which one will prevail?

Edited by Giganaut, May 19 2012 - 17:47.

[Lunaris]

A3 already out? I dont think their autoloader can match German 120mm and they are happy enough that their 125 gun can fire ATGM.

[Giganaut]

 Lunaris, on May 20 2012 - 21:56, said:

A3 already out? I dont think their autoloader can match German 120mm and they are happy enough that their 125 gun can fire ATGM.

yeap, that thing is almost heavy as a tiger 2 but they say it'll have a lower ground pressure than the tiger 2...   which would make them making the tracks wider than the KT's tracks....

also the thing has a huge turret. stretched rear... would be blocking the vents upwards, saw one pic with the blast exhaust pointing down... that wouldn't be good...

http://defensetech.o...ankonatrain.jpg
http://defensetech.o...nkonatrain6.jpg
and other one that they claim that this is the new a3 also

http://media.moddb.c...m1a3_abrams.jpg

Edited by Giganaut, May 20 2012 - 23:03.

[Killertomato]

 Giganaut, on May 20 2012 - 22:58, said:

yeap, that thing is almost heavy as a tiger 2 but they say it'll have a lower ground pressure than the tiger 2...   which would make them making the tracks wider than the KT's tracks....

also the thing has a huge turret. stretched rear... would be blocking the vents upwards, saw one pic with the blast exhaust pointing down... that wouldn't be good...

Neither of those is the M1A3. The first one is a test turret on an M1 hull, and the second one is an '80s demonstrator called the CATTB.

[Giganaut]

 Killertomato, on May 21 2012 - 00:53, said:

Neither of those is the M1A3. The first one is a test turret on an M1 hull, and the second one is an '80s demonstrator called the CATTB.

oh... guess i was misinformed

[The_Chieftain]

The first one is the ATAC, a 140mm demonstrator. It also is an old vehicle.

[TheRealPaladin]

 The_Chieftain, on May 21 2012 - 02:52, said:

The first one is the ATAC, a 140mm demonstrator. It also is an old vehicle.

It is also ugly as sin.

[Giganaut]

 Giganaut, on May 19 2012 - 16:48, said:

let me set to another scenario.


a T-90 and the M1a3 Abrams, both fitted with the same abrams gun.

place them both on an endurance test, all the way to kill the other target, without any uav or any 'eyes in the sky' or even satellite assistance.
one more thing no refueling. and no ammo restock or any sort of replenishing/ refilling  

which one will prevail?

ok NEW scenario. replace M1a3 with the M1a2.

[Lunaris]

Those who can score side shoot wins. Want to try another secenario? The earliest version of T 80 vs earliest verson of M1, who win?

[blurr91]

 Giganaut, on May 19 2012 - 16:48, said:

let me set to another scenario.


a T-90 and the M1a3 Abrams, both fitted with the same abrams gun.

place them both on an endurance test, all the way to kill the other target, without any uav or any 'eyes in the sky' or even satellite assistance.
one more thing no refueling. and no ammo restock or any sort of replenishing/ refilling  

which one will prevail?

Those are a lot of restrictions.  How do you impose those restrictions during a war?

[Giganaut]

 blurr91, on May 23 2012 - 22:16, said:

Those are a lot of restrictions.  How do you impose those restrictions during a war?

afraid that the abrams would lose?
plus this is somewhat like a worse case scenario