maturin

Can Edge approach a Steel Beasts level of terrain detail? Because no matter how good your vehicle sim is, playing on a featureless blurry plain is pointless. A tank isn't worth anything without a battlefield, and even Steel Beasts is pretty dismal on that front. They'd be better off developing an ArmA DLC. On the other hand, this will force them to pull the engine's head out of it ass and make trees block vision.

And removing them, too. No more worrying about shorting out your wire connection by flying over water or past a tree on a windy day. The TOW has a great warhead but the system is freaking ANCIENT.

That's because you are reading the post wrong. It uses a specific grammatical structure where the words 'west' and 'propaganda' are read first, then the surrounding words are read in expanding order, but the meaning is irrelevant.

About those lasers... could the navy be banking on them to eventually neuter all those new Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles that are making everyone fret? Or does a laser require too much time burning the target to stop a hypersonic missile?

There are? I only post the borderline editorial because I haven't heard anything else.

It's a cruel trick of the universe how the camera shrinks wave sizes by 400%. Except for the last few plunges, I was thinking how that looks like a nice day sail in the bay.

Has this been posted yet? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de I'd bet anything that the development of the F35 has only been averagely shitty, and the T-50 looks great because the Russians don't let all the leaks and technical details get out. In the real world, all advanced weapon systems muddle through their own little shitstorms until deployment, at which point they're borderline useless until the Mark II upgrade.

This looks like a computerized version of ASL. Are the rules very similar?

OMG, that's a beautiful link. What did you want to know in particular?

And also never hit anything.

But what could make such bizarre, rhythmic behavior? Maybe it's a limitation that's way overmodeled. I mean, if you're keeping the pipper on a fixed target it doesn't matter whether that bit of ground is on Kazbek or the Amazon.

It's actually the laser that glitches out the Su-25T pipper. It starts flickering back and forth hundreds of meters, even in steady dives. When you're aiming near a mountain ridge the problem is especially bad. Disabling the laser calms the pipper down. As for the S-13, if the problem was angle of attack, then it should affect the other rockets too, no?

Aren't the S-13s still broken anyways? Last time I played, they would always impact a good 50-100m past the pipper, making them useless against point targets. And because of the baffling lack of any bug trackers (seriously, wtf), forum reports just get buried and there's never any indication of what is going to get eventually fixed.

The Russian equivalent of Stormfront would be as mainstream as CBS.

I'm skeptical that Russian doctrine calls for rocket attacks against tanks. For pepin has never let a fact get in the way of his posts, or based his arguments on actual technical knowledge.

Yeah, I distinguished between 'tank with ammo in crew compartment' and 'Abrams' there. Removing the risk of ammo brew-up still leaves a whole lot of nasty fire, overpressure and spall-related things that can happen, resulting in a catastrophic kill, though.

Yeah, but... ...source? That's clearly a quote, so where does it come from? I know I would be very interested to read it. Woe betide he who gets their info from youtube videos.

Only due to probability. If a weapon can penetrate the armor, it penetrates the armor. Or it doesn't. There's no cumulative effect. The only thing that matters, all things being equal, is shot placement. But shot placement is difficult to do with AT weapons. An 80-90mm shaped charge (ie, PG-7VL, SMAW, AT-4) is perfectly capable of getting a catastrophic kill through the side armor of any tank that stores ammo in the crew compartment. And if you hit in the right spot, it will do it reliably, and on the first hit. And a hit to the rear turret of an Abrams could easily kill the crew.

Since this has gotten heated, I will point out something very important. You're the one who came late to the argument with the worthlessly obvious observation (disputed by no one) that a perfect S-8KOM hit to the top armor could destroy a modern MBT. That's nice, but it's not what we were talking about. It started with me challenging Pepin's assertion that two S-8 hits should destroy an Abrams, regardless of shot placement, angle of impact, etc. But in regards to your topic, there is never a guaranteed kill with AT weapons. Something can always go wrong with the very delicate formation of the shaped charge jet, and a tank is a big target with a lot of dead space where penetrations do little harm. Abrams have taken RPG hits to the commander's hatch from third-story windows and escaped with no damage. On paper, based on what we know, this is as close to a 100% definite kill as you can get. On paper, an Abrams also has no business surviving a Maverick hit, which it has. There are no absolutes.

Are you putting any thought at all into your answers? A cannon is vastly more accurate than dumb rockets, which are the most inaccurate form of dumb munition available anywhere. And with an S-8 or S-13, you have very few chances to hit a tank. And that one single hit needs to count. With the GAU-8, you have almost 1000 chances to hit, and an enormous amount of redundancy because you are guaranteed to score multiple hits. I mean, hell, we have a whole goddamn game dedicated to simulating this. Go play it and find out why FFARs are the worst anti-tank weapon imaginable. Also, stop it with the butthurt. Neither of you is even Russian, and although your spirited defense of the motherland is cute, it is unnecessary. There is nothing Russian about the S-8 or S-13. They're both simple, cheap, dumb rockets. The Americans have them and so do the rest of humanity. None of these rockets have any important differences between them, and if any of them is slightly worse, it's because the designers didn't give a crap about improving it. You could outfit some eskimos with duck tape and PVC pipe and they could throw together a passable FFAR.

No one's disputing that. It's just that FFARs are crappy anti-tank weapons. Bombs and missiles are better. If you ask GGTharos about A-10s and their Hydra rockets (same caliber), you'll get exactly the same answer. Don't be so dramatic. The Su-25A was never intended to take on tank formations with dumb rockets, so you're not even defending anyone's honor here. They do just fine up to 45 degrees, actually. Javelins always hit at that angle in top attach mode. Same with Hellfires. And if you are going for side or rear armor (Abrams is vulnerable to RPG from the side arc and entire rear, btw), you can just use a shallow dive.

Well, the S-8KOM can defeat any MBT easily. You just need to use the same tactics as you would with the GAU-8. Hit the roof and rear armor. It's only the 'two hits should always kill' mentality that is wrong. Shot placement is everything, and the S-8 penetrates vastly more armor than any amount of 30mm AP.

Could you post the source on those diagrams, please? AT weapons are not cumulative. It either penetrates or it doesn't. In the case of the S-8KOM, you can chuck them at an Abrams' turret all day and nothing will happen. Actually, you can spray them all over an Abrams and nothing is likely to happen. 400mm of penetration is extremely weak.

IIRC, the Stryker is actually a lot tougher than the BTR. It's supposed to withstand 14.5mm on the sides, allowing it to outclass equivalent APCs. Also, armor protection doesn't work in a 'linear' sort of way. If you look at videos of tank or body armor, projectiles that may have only half the kinetic energy needed to penetrate (bear with me on the hypothetical numbers) usually don't penetrate halfway through the armor. Modern Level III rifle plates can't handle anything out of their class, but within their class, projectiles simply shatter uselessly, barely scratching the surface. You would only be able to gradually bore through in laboratory conditions, not on a battlefield, shooting from a helo 500mm away. It's never going to happen. Older BTRs and BRDMs could definitely be penetrated in weaker areas, though. Otherwise, you could shred the tires (AFAIK they can move on rims, but slowly) and maybe land some lucky hits on/through optics, gunports, etc. So yeah. Short burst and ANNOYED BTR. Annoyed BTR with a much bigger gun than you. Miniguns aren't exactly wonders of accuracy and shot placement, either. Even against a BTR, you might end up just knicking a few passengers.

That's what I kept thinking about during this thread. Let Brazil make a politically-motivated purchase. Not like they have anyone to fight anyhow, and any puny neighbor that picks a fight will quickly regret it.