Comment History  (0 - 30 of 509)
tanker1408 Jan 6 2015, 11:02pm replied:

Actually, not. In fact, quite the opposite. Who would have thought things turn out like this? Now it's not Urkain vs Germany, but Ukraine (+ Germany and USA) vs Russia instead... very conspiring.

I see a dark future for Europe, if the European people don't unite with Russia against the capitalist warmongers.

+1 vote   mod: Point of Existence: 2
tanker1408 Oct 8 2014, 9:58pm replied:

i know man, me too.

+2 votes   mod: Forgotten Hope: Secret Weapon
tanker1408 May 15 2014, 3:35am says:

Merkava IV turret on T-90 chassis? Disgusting perverts! lol jk xD

+1 vote   media: Modded MOW:AS tanks
tanker1408 May 15 2014, 3:33am replied:

Sorry I kinda repeated myself there twice lol. Sorry for the long comment xD

+1 vote   media: Modded MOW:AS tanks
tanker1408 May 15 2014, 3:24am replied:

Yes indeed, modern KE penetrators (APFSDS) are so strong, they never simply "bounce off" an angular armor plate, that's not possible, because they are simply too powerfull. They have such a poweful penetrating potential that they will always penetrate the first layers of the composite armor (the surface). That's why such thing as "shot-trap" doesn't exist on modern MBT's anymore. Because the point of modern composite armor is not to delfect/ricochet a APFSDS penetrator, but to slow the penetrating KE rod down so much, that it will lose its potential penetrating power and eventually stop completely, so that it will get stuck in the armor itself - but it won't fully penetrate and so the crew will not be harmed. Whether a composite armor "works" (as it is intended) or not depends on many different factors, but that's another story to be told. But the fact remains, that a APFSDS penetrator will never bounce off an angulare armor. It will always penetrate the first layer and if the armor works as it is intended, then the penetrator gets stuck in the armor and it won't go any further. So that the crew will not be harmed and the tank is not destroyer and it is still operational. But as to how much it penetrates into the armor depends on the individual armor applique itself. Sure, the tank will be damaged to some degree, but that can be repaired after the battle in a few hours. It is at least much cheaper to only repair a part of the tank, than to built another one entirely from scratch again.

+1 vote   media: Modded MOW:AS tanks
tanker1408 Nov 8 2013, 7:56pm replied:

me neither :o

+2 votes   member: tanker1408
tanker1408 Nov 8 2013, 6:37pm replied:

The british Challenger 2 MBT is a copy of the Russian post-war tank IS-7.

+1 vote   media: Mindblown :o
tanker1408 Jul 31 2013, 10:38pm says:

The T-90 is much more in the need of some major upgrades, as it is far behind, and more outdated than the M1 Abrams, or any other western MBT for that matter. Since after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian tanks have not been modernized to modern standards. Unlike western MBT's which have continuously been upgraded and redesigned throughout the last years.

The T-90 has the worst protection, because it still uses the outdated Kontakt-5 ERA from the 1980's, which is outdated by now. It may have been very effective back in the 80's, but it's insufficient for today's protection standards. Now, the M829A3 and DM53 (used by the Abrams and Leopard) are both able to penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA (and of course the basic armor of the tank). In fact, even the earlier M829A2 from the early 90's was already credited of being able to penetrate the K-5)

On top of this, the 125mm gun that is used by all Russian tanks, has not received any upgrades or any new tank rounds capable of penetrating the front armor of the Leopard 2A6 or the M1A2 SEP. At least not the turret front. Maybe it could penetrate the lower hull front of the western MBT's, at close range, but I'll leave this open to debate.

Although the Russians did come up with a few new prototypes recently, such as the T-95 (with an impressive 152mm gun), or the T-90AM presented in 2011, which has the new developed Relikt ERA armor. But neither of them have entered service yet, and probably will remain as such for the next few years.

0 votes   media: M1A1
tanker1408 Jul 29 2013, 7:12pm says:

lol nice, is that a E-100 twin barreled flak tank "Krokodil" with twin 88mm guns that I spot in the upper right corner?

+1 vote   media: Wot tanks in Men Of War
tanker1408 Jul 28 2013, 2:14am replied:

i know, but MBT's are the modern working horse of the Armed Forces today, hence the reference..

+8 votes   media: Old vs New
tanker1408 May 20 2013, 8:46pm says:

Is there a way that you could add the prototype tanks such as Maus, KV-3, T29 and T-95 from the mod FHSW (Forgotten hope Secret Weapons)?

Because the FHSW mod doesn't work with CO-OP bot support, so if you could add those tanks, that would be very nice.

0 votes   mod: Forgotten Hope Revisited
tanker1408 Nov 3 2012, 7:45pm replied:

You don't say!

+1 vote   media: We future now
tanker1408 Aug 17 2012, 12:28am says:

All I'm askinng for is one thing: Could you please at least import the Noah Battleship from the game Nexus? This is the only ship I care about, I don't care about all the other Nexus ships. Only the Noah Battleship is important to me, because it is my favorite ship of all time. It really means everything to me. If you could add only this one ship to your mod, that would be super awesome and I'd be very satisfied! if it isn't too much work for you that is... but it would definitely be worth your effort. And don't worry about not having the permission, Nexus is dead game since more than 8 years, they won't complain. Trust me. You are totally free to use their models. It's only up to you my friend...

+1 vote   mod: EVE: RTS
tanker1408 May 15 2012, 1:42pm says:

I really like the idea of making a strategy genre game out of the models from W.o.T.

Some of the prototype tanks deserve more recognition in other games too.

+1 vote   mod: Command and Conquer: Tank Warfare
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 11:30pm replied:

But it does.

+1 vote   media: Electric Armor
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 11:18pm replied:

this comment was totally uncalled for. the person you responded to wasn't even talking about the L2.

+2 votes   media: Tanks, old and new
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 10:54pm replied:

Nope, both the m5 and M4 would most porbably lose in a head-to-head fight against the Hetzer. Maybe the hetzer isn't facing it YET in this photo, but it is just about to turn.

The stuart's tiny 37mm gun can not penetrate the Hetzer's front armor, which is about 100-110mm effective because of good slope. Neither can the Sherman penetrate it with its short 75mm gun which penetrates only like 80mm with standard APBC ammo. Although the Hetzer has only 50mm thin armor plating but it's sloped @60° and that doubles the effect.
The M4 or M5 typically can't destroy it from the front. On the other hand, the hetzer's 75mm gun could theoretically penetrate both American tanks from over 1,100m still...

tl;dr Stuart and Sherman are pretty much screwed. :P (except if they out flank the hetzer, then he will be screwed)

+1 vote   media: Hetzer, Marsch!
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 10:47pm replied:

Read again, I didn't say it has 100mm thick armor plating, I said the armor is about 100-110mm EFEFCTIVE because it is angled at 60°.

Can you do the math? 50mm armor plate at 60° angle = 100mm LOS.

+1 vote   media: Hetzer, Marsch!
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 10:40pm replied:

Oh noes he made me look bad on the internet, i'm gonna go cry in the corner now :P

astounding how could I possibly have missed the details during my analysis back then... anyway, i give you +1. Gj

0 votes   media: A well-camouflaged Conqueror
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 10:30pm replied:

What is your point? Of course this is the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment (Cyclops Squadron) that was ambushed in the town "Az Zubayr" which is near Basra. This drawing just shows the figh. So what exactly are you trying to disprove?

And we know that not a single CHR2 was ever "destroyed" by enemy fire. we never claimed otherwise. However we only discussed about that one CHR2 that was penetrated through the lower front armor in al-Amarah. That's all.
So once gain, I don't see your point. What are you trying to dispriove here? The CHR2 probably has got the most successful combat history of any other modern MBTs so far.

+1 vote   media: Challenger 2 meets RPG-7 in Iraq 2003
tanker1408 Feb 9 2012, 9:46pm replied:

hmmm. Are you sure? This is not to be confused with the other image here

Same battle - but different images ;)

+1 vote   media: King Tiger winter battle in Hungary
tanker1408 Feb 2 2012, 11:51am replied:

nope. Chr1 and Chieftain are two whole different tanks. For example, it's more like Tiger I to Tiger II. Or Pz III to Pz IV. Also different tank types with new shaped body/turret.

+1 vote   media: M-95 Degman
tanker1408 Feb 2 2012, 11:33am replied:

and by "modern armor" i meant regular composite armor design. Other armor types like Reactive armor works differently again.

+1 vote   media: CHr2
tanker1408 Feb 2 2012, 11:23am says:

If the Leopard 2 had an obvious shot-trap like this, do you not think they would have noticed and fixed this problem by now? Do you seriously think it would be one of the world's best selling MBT if it had such an obvious shot-trap? Please think a little and use your logic before making such arguments.

people who still speak of these shot-traps tend to make their conclusions from WW2 era tanks, not realizing the differences in both armor and penetrator tech between now and then. People like that are lacking or missing GREAT amount of newest informations of modern tank warfare. Modern APFSDS rounds, as a general rule, don't deflect like in WW2.

Modern long-rod kinetic energy penetrators (APFSDS) behave in a different way than old traditional solid shot armour-piercing rounds used in WW2.

Modern penetrators are so powerful in penetrating capabilities nowadays, they don't just "bounce off the armor and leave a scratch on it" they will now always penetrate in the first place and "go inside the armor package" anyway, they can not be stopped from penetrating the first layers. BUT, modern armor is designed to stop it from reaching the base armor. That's how it works today.

That's why the Leopard 2A5/ A6 with edge-shaped turret front does not form a shot-trap since it doesn't deflect the penetrators outwards to hit the hull or turret ring.

+1 vote   media: CHr2
tanker1408 Jan 30 2012, 9:54am replied:

lol I was joking when I said it's "1980 ish". Sure, having no blowout panels is a drawback but it's still one of the TOP 5 best protected MBTs today. And there already are solutions available to increase protection against mentioned threats.

Best solution would be APS (Activ protection System) working both in Soft and Hard Kill way, which will be very effective to defeat HEATs, APFSDS, ATGMs and even top attacks from high trajectory like Javelin or EFP warheads from artillery ammunition like "BONUS".

+1 vote   media: Challenger 2 with up-armor kit
tanker1408 Jan 29 2012, 9:37am says:

WW1 battlecruisers

+1 vote   media: ship battle in ww1
tanker1408 Jan 29 2012, 9:13am says:

Depends on the right circumstances, crew training, and a little bit of Luck. Since they can all destory each other, it wins the crew who detects the enemy first and makes the hit. I know you didn't seriously ask for a debate, i'm just rolling with your comment :) Re-post all the comments!

+4 votes   media: ARL-44
tanker1408 Jan 29 2012, 8:54am replied:

Seriously, i don't understand why they don't upgrade CHr2 with cased ammo and "blow-out panels" like the Leopard and M1 have. (the panels that would blow out forcing the blast upwards instead of towards the crew compartment). Even if the ammo is seperated but putting it with the crew exposed is dangerous.

Modern Western MBTs without blowout panels is so 1980-ish.

+2 votes   media: Challenger 2 with up-armor kit
tanker1408 Jan 20 2012, 10:54pm says:

there, changed.

+3 votes   media: Kleinstpanzer (little tank)
tanker1408 Jan 19 2012, 8:34pm replied:

i don't get it. are you asking for the source?

+1 vote   media: T-90A armor penetration test
Offline Since
Apr 12, 2015
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Member Watch
Track this member
Comment Statistics
Posts per day