king homer

Well I felt really uncomfortable sitting in the gunner position of the T-72. The massive gun breech constrained my lower body. And I'm just 1,80m. I also heard the missing air conditioning made it terrific to use in desert terrain.

Jaja, du weisst was ich meine. But I was talking about the size of workspace. ;)

That's why most of the people talk of estimates. I worked myself through tons of armor technology books and the normal tank books and gather lot of intel from the holy internet. But in the end I'm still an armchair general likewise. But some things are really evident and already validated - so why not rely on these facts? Things like T-90 is a new built tank is just wrong. In the end it will remain as an upgraded T-72. And if you ever sat in a Leopard 2 and a T-72 you will know which tank to chose.

Have you any evidence at all? :rolleyes:

The USMC still uses the M1A1 in it's latest version. As far as I understand you're talking about the first picture I posted. The graph is not made by me. ;-) It's the comparison of the front armor (KE protection level) in relation to the impact point of the ammunition when fired parallel to the maingun.

This is true but I was comparing T-72 and M1A1. T-72 width = 3.60 m M1A1 width = 3.66 m T-72 height = 2.20 m M1A1 height = 2.44 m

Theoretically yes. But in reality it will be unbelieveable hard to guide the missile to a small silouhette at maximum engagement range. Depending on the type of missile it takes up to 24 seconds to reach the utmost range. 24 seconds the engaging tank is vulnerable to the enemy. The warhead of most Russian gun launched missiles are as good as most other CE warheads. It's true, the M1 is longer but height and width is almost the same. That's just not true. The first T-64s were still equipped with the 115mm gun developed for the T-62. T-64A introduced the 125mm gun but the gun launched missiles were first available in the T-64B with new 1A33-1 FCS. And the missile was far away from being able to penetrate todays armor. 1.000 was not a rough estimate by me. Read my last post again. Let alone the three main Republican Guard companies had about 700 T-72 tanks deployed. The only "new" tank (4th generation) is the Leclerc. All other tanks exist quite as long as M1 or T-72 do. Leopard 2 saw firsth light in the late 70's while the T-90 is "just" an improved T-72. It makes no sense at all to compare side or back armor of any tank. If you want to make a statement you always and only consider front protection. Tanks are meant to fight face to face Source? This is just not true either. Why would the Abrams need a new turret for the same gun with increased length. The internal modifications are necessary yes, as already mentioned by DM. Main reason for the cancle was in my eyes that the current M829A3 ammunition performed as good with the L44 as the non-DU ammo with the L55. So why spend money for something not yet beaten? No it's not made out of composite armor all over. But that ain't no secret at all. Side turret armor is steel with probably an air spacing. Rest is also steel armor. Here are some pictures I collected over time from tanknet forums. A general comparison of the Russian vs. US tank armor arrangement. And the inside of a T-72 turret front:

Okay I was wrong on that. I just looked it up in Steven Zaloga's M1 Abrams vs. T-72. There were 1.956 in total deployed M1A1s (including HA's) and they faced about 1.000 T-72 tanks (21 regiments). May you give us the source on this, especially which version of the T-64 are you talking about? In theory maybe. On flat terrain maybe and clear visibility and a well trained crew. But with these factors not given I cannot see how the gun launched missile is superior to Western tanks armament.

Thanks for the answer. Are you referring in any way to this article: http://web.archive.org/web/20070627074002/http://members.rediff.com/wolf17679/k-5.html This would substantiate your argument. But it's hard to believe someone could buy a T-72B obj. 89/90 for testing purpose. You're sure if they tested there penetrators on K-5?

I think this ain't his source. These are no T-72B's neither are they equipped with ERA. :p

Source? ;) I'd also say the T-72 in Arma2 is a kind-of-early-T72A model.

So basically that what I wrote and you wrote already. Your source? :D

Iraqi T-72s were as mentioned before in this thread original T-72 models from Russia or export models from Poland (T-72M/M1). Iraq also received some knock-down kits to assemble their own T-72M/M1/whatever (Asad Babil). Most of the T-72 built in Iraq are made out of different T-72 version parts, some with and some without laser range finders etc., so you can't identify them exactly. If you're searching for bugs there is little chance you won't find any. But I'm sure the armor damage system is not the reason for your massive FPS drop.

That's a loose statment Baff1. There were no T-64 at all in the Gulf War. The T-64 was never exported. There were a lot more T-72s in Gulf War than M1s. I could now list a lot of facts why the M1 was the far more superior tank in GW but fortunately Archbishop Lazarus did already do this.

Amazing speed-reload capabilities this gunner has.

If there is a seperate power source available this might work, else the turret movement needs the turbine to be powered up. I'm not aware if there is some sort of APU available for the T-80B models. The commanders gun isn't operated remotely on the M1A2. Or do you mean something like the TUSK RWS? Nevertheless, thanks RH for this incredible tank pack - can't wait for some U series T-80. ;)

The T-90A is equipped with ESSA thermal sight. Depending on the version of the T-90A they are either equipped with Shtora but less ERA or vice versa. If you want to have some basic Shtora just test the ACE T-90.

Actually this is the same T-90 I already posted.

What about this: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16537 ? ;-) The thing is, the zoom modes rely on the real counterpart. Same like T-72 optics with fixed magnification.

And I thought this is not going to be another kindergarten tank comparison thread. PS: DM, I'd choose the Abrams over the Leopard. ;-)

Yes it does. Both T-90 models presented in ACE have a gun launched missile available, loaded through the action menue. --- Dractyum, will you also create the T-90A version without Shtora IR reflectors?

You placed the ACE wounding module?

Long story short: Lots of people say the Abrams is overpowered and other people say it's underpowered. Abrams front hull armor is equal to 590 mm RHA vs KE ammunition and 770 mm RHA vs CE ammunition. Makes it pretty vulnerable to most of the Russian APFSDS ammunition. The BI M1A2 TUSK-a-like model is pretty much fucked up modelwise, so don't try this one. There is no balance set up by ACE. Most of the weapons ingame are ineffective if fired upon the Abrams front turret. Nevertheless a hit to the front hull or the rest of the tank will destroy it. Same old rule as always: See first, kill first.

This is intentionally. M1A2 CITV FLIR is orange white hot and orange black hot. :)

The Sukhois will find their way into ACE sooner or later. A little bit of patience is always appreciated. For all other questions: http://ace.dev-heaven.net/wagn/Changes_in_ACE_for_OA Bug reports still go there: http://dev-heaven.net/projects/ace-mod2/issues So schwer auch nicht?