i hope i was the inspiration 👍 and idevlove to see that. ide do the sim myself but i dont have the same software, and im using a server from 2012 for my sims lol 24 cores of hot xeon
@@leoproz274 this really needs to happen. i just tried it on my pc (hp z800 workstation) and with my crap software and hardware its a 19 day sim . i can't wait that long
If memory serves the A-10 never killed a single main battle tank with its gun. I do seem to recall it achieved one MBT mobility kill with the gun in Iraq, but it was friendly fire. Some people think the gun makes it a tank killer, but its the missiles. The gun simply doesnt have the penetration to get through even the top plates of MBT's of its era, let alone modern ones
IIRC the only gun kills it ever got on MBTs were in trials against hilariously outdated MBTs like the M47 and T-62 under quite literally perfect scenarios and it still failed to get more than a couple catastrophic kills. Specifically the pilots was allowed to make as many passes as desired, expend as much ammunition per pass as desired, make the pass at whatever speed and altitude desired, made against stationary tanks in a flat open field in the light of day under clear weather conditions. I think one T-62 was destroyed and two M47s. It was speculated that had the T-62s been T-64s and M47s been M60s no catastrophic losses would've occured at all. It's rate of disabling the tanks was also less than 50% and all disabled but not destroyed vehicles only suffered damage that'd take a couple hours to fix. Out of 30 tanks 3 were destroyed and 9 disabled. Notably only 18% of rounds fired made contact, including those that ricocheted off the ground and hit the targets indirectly. Edit: The US tanks used as targets were M47s not M48s, my bad Edit #2: Also it was five A-10s, not one. My bad again.
Well, maybe the request meant frontally at ground level at very high distance? I mean, we all knew there would be no chance😅 Were there any projectiles that you have already tested that were a brink case for BMP-2/3? What I'm wondering is they could be tested on both to determine which is better protected. Why? There is a widespread online opinion that BMP-2(especially D) is better protecting the crew and dismounts due to forward engine placement then BMP-3 and thus they call the latter a mistake. Engine placement choice is also the main visual difference between BMP-3 and QBZ-4(or was it QBZ-7?) design.
I predict absolutely no penetration. I predict it will bounce off like a silly cartoon. In all seriousness though, I would love to see more simulations that feature fuel tanks. Still very curious about how they play out in different situations.
@@williamzk9083 the BMP isn't built to witstand such attacks. It is a small IFV with the purpose of carrying troops and providing fire support to infantry. It can shield the crew from arms fire and small to medium caliber ammo.
