SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 06-08-13, 01:00 PM

Technical director of eSim wrote on July 4th 2013 in the eSim forum on the issue of Russian reactive armour bricks:

"No, they are functional. That does not necessarily mean that they will defeat all incoming RPGs. (...) Tandem warheads will of course ignore ERA surfaces."

Just the visual effects of ERA exploding are not shown so far, afaik. But the use of a mathematical model to simulate first the ERA and then the solid armour getting struck by a shot has been confirmed already several years ago, it's been like that since quite a longer time. Some T-72 versions in the sim also have ERA since longer time now.

Cobrabase all in all got the general assessments right, I think. The beyond the speed of light-superiority of 3rd generation uran ammo versus latest German Tungsten he probably overestimates a bit, how it was with Tungsten and first uran generation in the 80s I do not know, SBP statistrics project a greater difference there indeed than with the latest generations of both rounds. Latest Tungsten rounds fired from the new L55 in Leo2A7 and -E almost match or even surpass the uran 3rd generation fired from the L44 used in the Abrams in penetrating power. Also, late time contamination of soldiers moving on an uran-poisened battlefield that he lists as a bonus, is tactically worthless, since the degrading effect on health sets in - if it even effects troops - not before the war is long since over. That the local population suffers from it due to long-time exposure, is something different, but tactically also uninteresting. My biggest issue with him was the comparing of reloading the ready rack. While he has a point in that the M1 can reload under fire and the Leo must swing the gun to its five o'clock position and thus offering two most vulnerable sides at two directions, he does not lose a word on a.) the influence of manouver tactics taking that into account, and b) the Leopar can reload the ready rack from the hull storage much faster than the M1. He should have assessed these factors in more detail against each other instead of comparing them completely.

06-08-13, 01:00 PM	#36
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,528 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Technical director of eSim wrote on July 4th 2013 in the eSim forum on the issue of Russian reactive armour bricks: "No, they are functional. That does not necessarily mean that they will defeat all incoming RPGs. (...) Tandem warheads will of course ignore ERA surfaces." Just the visual effects of ERA exploding are not shown so far, afaik. But the use of a mathematical model to simulate first the ERA and then the solid armour getting struck by a shot has been confirmed already several years ago, it's been like that since quite a longer time. Some T-72 versions in the sim also have ERA since longer time now. Cobrabase all in all got the general assessments right, I think. The beyond the speed of light-superiority of 3rd generation uran ammo versus latest German Tungsten he probably overestimates a bit, how it was with Tungsten and first uran generation in the 80s I do not know, SBP statistrics project a greater difference there indeed than with the latest generations of both rounds. Latest Tungsten rounds fired from the new L55 in Leo2A7 and -E almost match or even surpass the uran 3rd generation fired from the L44 used in the Abrams in penetrating power. Also, late time contamination of soldiers moving on an uran-poisened battlefield that he lists as a bonus, is tactically worthless, since the degrading effect on health sets in - if it even effects troops - not before the war is long since over. That the local population suffers from it due to long-time exposure, is something different, but tactically also uninteresting. My biggest issue with him was the comparing of reloading the ready rack. While he has a point in that the M1 can reload under fire and the Leo must swing the gun to its five o'clock position and thus offering two most vulnerable sides at two directions, he does not lose a word on a.) the influence of manouver tactics taking that into account, and b) the Leopar can reload the ready rack from the hull storage much faster than the M1. He should have assessed these factors in more detail against each other instead of comparing them completely. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 06-08-13 at 01:18 PM.