A few notes from what I saw here: - The rangefinder doesn't adjust for ranges below 1000 meters, so if you think the target is within that range, just set to 1000 and aim at it. - At a couple of moments your tank didn't fire because the gun barrel wasn't able to depress enough to line up with the gunsight. The red light in the range wheel up top turned off to alert you to this problem. - If an Abrams cloaks itself with its smoke grenades, you are not safe. The thermal optics can see through all smoke except white phosphorous artillery shells.
Aaah okay, good to know about the rangefinder, thanks! About the barrel and sight alignment, legit question, why doesn't this work during barrel movement while driving the tank? So many times I'll be trying to shoot while on the move, only to find out that the barrel isn't aligned with the sight due to me driving over bumps. The light however does burn red all the time. Is there a way to know whether or not your barrel is aligned while driving? And yeah, I know about the smoke. But I suppose my mindset is "it's better than nothing". Lol
@@akkapamagaming The fire gating becomes glitchy when it's tuned too strictly, blocking you from firing much of the time. So until we get a chance to change how it's coded, it won't work for moving shots.
@@ActionScripter I guess you did the fire control system a bit wrong - Red light is on when gun is loaded and ready to fire. Basically it tells the gunner that loading procedure is complete. The gun will not fire if it's not aligned with the sight however without any visual warning. The manual says that gunner should "hold" the trigger until the gun fires. And basically if you are on the move and gun is moving up and down it should fire automatically exactly when it's aligned with the sight. So basically when you are a gunner and hold trigger for several seconds and the gun is not firing you know that the gun if off target and something is wrong
@@StupidLoginSystem2 All sources I've seen say that the ready-to-fire light requires the gun to be loaded and armed *and* aligned to the sight. If you have evidence otherwise, I'm eager to see it.
great work also two entrusting facts : the US had discovered composite armor quite a bit before the soviets with the T95E1 with it's siliceous cored armor inside the frontal hull and turret but the issue the US found was getting it to survive more the one round without completely destroying the entire plate as the armor was VERY VERY fragile and did not stand up to continues hits the soviet's found that they could easily built the turret armor for the 64A in small members but when it came to upscaling production that's where issues came mainly on to the balls getting knocked out of place or the wire Metrix attracted to them getting milted
I was so stoked to finally have a tank that can kill and defend against the M1's, the composite array in the turret and the front plate consisting of steel and glass (at least according the game) is super interesting.
the front full armor is more or less the same as the T-72M the turret consist of corundum balls that spin around and feed more material into the incoming projectile thus continually degrading it quite entrusting stuff when you look into it
This is my favorite tank in the game at the moment. She's powerful enough and armored enough to make it feel like a mean machine, but still fragile enough and with quirks like the rangefinder that require you to work for your victories. I find it really satisfying to do well in compared to say the M1 or even M60 TTS. Also this was the first mission I played after trying the gunnery range tutorials because I'd gotten the game right when the Soviets patch dropped and wanted to try the shiny new tank. I too narrowed things down to one T64 vs half of that final platoon company attack from the north, but it didn't go so well for me. It's absolutely bonkers mission in the best way and you did a great job capturing it in the video!
Yeah the T-64A is a little beast. Just advanced enough to be a modern tank but just old school enough to be a handful. Small (for a tank) and nimble. Thanks for your comment!
18:04 - Sigint - Signals intelligence, which is intelligence on enemy plans/operations gathered through interception or observation of enemy communications signals, such as radio transmissions
The Soviets had better smoke launchers and you should use them more. They would launch their smoke grenades way further because they were meant to enable maneuver. Also the Soviet smokes were formulated to block thermal sensors. I think that would have helped a least a bit. Chobham armor was actually developed by the UK and not the US. The Brits were mad at the US because when the UK agreed to share the tech with the US the US didn't keep it secret. These beef persists to this day to the point the Brits have developed new armor tech and they aren't sharing it. The thing I dislike about the Abrams in games is designers act like the Abrams is indestructible. I've scored side shots on Abrams at the gunnery range that did nothing. That's laughable because the Abrams is weak on the sides. Especially the early M1 tanks. The idea of placing nearly all the armor on the front arc of the tank was the thing to do back then. About 70% of tank hits were to the front. In more recent conflicts side shots have been more common because the tanks are being (mis)used in combat in urban areas. The Abrams was deliberately designed to NOT fulfill the infantry support role. It was seen as "beneath" the Abrams. Hence the turbine engine that will burn to death infantry who are unfortunate enough to be behind the tank. Which is exactly what infantry are supposed to do when working with tanks in built up areas.
Thanks for your detailed comment! I do use the Soviet smoke launchers, but only when I feel like they'll actually help me out. For example, most of the fighting in this video was me shooting downhill to the enemy. In which case the smokes would be launched so far away and so much lower than me, that they wouldn't help me out at all. I did use the smoke launchers with the last Abrams of the video, because I was charging it and we were on the same height roughly. In GHPC I do struggle to find the usefulness of the Soviet smokes though. The grenades themselves spread a lot but then the smoke doesn't seem to spread so much, leaving many openings in the screen. Plus, I don't think the AI cares too much about the smoke anyway. Almost always when I use smoke, I still get shot by them. Meaning, the only one who gets blinded by them, is me, which is unfortunate, lol. And I know the Brits created the Chobham armor. But in GHPC we only have the US on the NATO side, which is why I use them as reference :)
Nice video. The T64a was probably the nastiest production vehicle in the world in '71 when it was introduced. But the T64a of '71 and the Object 432 of the 60's are vastly different vehicles. 4 man crew with a manually loaded 115mm means that the original T64 was little more than a larger T62.
Hey Akkappama,what settings would you recommend for having good frames but looking decent at the same time?.Btw i have a mid-spec gaming laptop,just askin.Good video anywasy
To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm a bit spoiled with a pretty beasty PC so I can just run everything on max settings without problems. Generally, anything regarding light can have big impacts on FPS. So think reflections, shadows, lightrays, etc. But I don't think GHPC is too advanced in that respect. I think the best thing you can do is just play around with the settings, change them one by one and check the impact on performance and overall looks they have. That way you can judge for yourself :) I did play GHPC on the lowest settings once just for fun and tbh, even then the game looked pretty good. Good luck!
From what I know, there were several reasons why NATO in general hasn't implemented autoloaders. 1: They are complex pieces of machinery which can break down. And once they don't work anymore, something simple like loading a gun can become a very complex task. Especially if you also don't have a specific loader crew member anymore. 2: Sort of falls together with reason 1, is that an autoloader takes up valuable space inside a tank. Soviet tanks on the inside for example are EXTREMELY cramped. One way you could solve this is by removing the loader as crew member. But the loader can be crucial to a tank's combat ability, since they can also replace other crewmembers when needed. 3: Autoloaders are again, very complex machines. Complexity means expensive. One of the reasons to not use autoloaders is to reduce both production, operation and maintenance costs. 4: Human loaders tend to actually be faster than autoloaders. This of course does reduce based on battle duration and exhaustion. But at least for some time, humans are to load guns faster and more efficiently than autoloaders.
