Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
according to the aero-nerds the SU-27 has a slight edge in maneuverability in its later versions when compared to the F-16, but its apparently not that clear cut.
As far as i can see it they should have at least the same value in the game.
what does it changes in mauverity?
And C-17 has 4 engines.
Su 27 is indeed famous for its agility in one-circle WVR dogfigting, not such much in 2 circle since it loses speed faster (what gives it its edge in close turns has a negative effect when turning into a 2nd circle), and performance in BVR of course depends more on the quality of the radar, data processing and the missiles of course.
From all publicly available information about both planes and according to aerospace experts there is indeed no reason the F-16 should be a whole magnitude higher in maneuverability in WARNO. They should be evenly matched in this category, at least.
But then the game is also about balance and not depicting all equipment as realistically as possible. Most soviet planes would probably have been shot down BVR due to better western radars and fire control, also not every soviet tanks explodes after the first penetrating hit as we see all the time in ukraine...
its a game, it needs some balance and units can only be made so they roughly correspond with their real life counterparts.
There are reports from Syria, that Russian ERA withstood direct hit by TOW and returned operational. All videas from UE are cut and arrange as far as i saw from the cannels like funker350.com
If you have better materials i would like to see them too.
Do take note of the rather key word used, first 'penetrating' hit. Soviet, and naturally in extension Russian, Tanks suffer from the same design flaw across them all compared to western counterparts, there is no safety system for the ammo. The ones stored in the autoloader is protected, and has had its primary weakness fixed ages ago, but it is the ammo stored outside of it that causes the catastrophic explosions to happen.
During the Chechen Wars, Russians figured out that they can reduce losses by only having ammo inside the autoloader proper.
It is why Russians in general invest heavily more into the ERA concept. You can penetrate a Western Design, even cause an ammo explosion, but both the Tank and the Crew is most likely still able to keep fighting. Not so much for Russian designs. If the shell goes through, and the crew didn't drop its ammo outside of the autoloader, then they get quickly promoted to the Russian space program.
In terms of why this is the case is purely down to physics. Due to the design of Soviet tanks in general, the confined space mixed with the lack of any way for the explosive force to vent out, all of it is directed internally. Soviets didn't use blowout panels, and it shows.
wait, you think all those hundreds of videos where you see ex.soviet tanks throwing their turrets into space are "arranged" ?
You realize that the autoloader carousel of all those tanks is in the turret ring, in the same space as the crew, right ? 16-18 rounds in a cricle around you and their propellant charges. Very often when the armor is penetrated the overpressure will ignite them and boom, sometimes the ammo cooks off and burns the crew, sometimes the whole turret flies sky high - as been observed literally hundreds of times, that cannot be "arranged", its a fundamental design flaw of soviet tanks.
There are also some advantages for russian tanks: They are lighter, have a lower profile, easier to transport, cheaper to manufacture, need only 3 crew instead of 4, but all those advantages mean some drawbacks on the battlefield.
Western tanks have their ammo in a seperate compartment in the back of the turret with blowout panels and the loader receives one round at a time by using an armored hatch that only opens briefly to let the round pass. As a result western tanks need to be bigger, heavier (15-20 tons sometimes) are more costly and more difficult to transport.
Information about the real effectiveness of russian ERA are highly disputed btw..., russia is known for propaganda and overstating the abilities of their weapon systems, so its not that clear. What i have seen that in some ERA blocks taken from captured russian tanks there was in fact cardboard inside, not explosives. Considering from the number of tanks lost by russia in Ukraine their ERA cannnot be that effective i guess, or it just has a failure ratio that means it works properly only sometimes.
On the card, technically, but as with just about all stats with just a word used to describe it, in this case Agility, the actual numbers behind it aren't identical.
Agility indicates the turn radius of the aircraft, and that's about it. For both this is identical, 1550m, and for the F-16 for example it is 1300m.
However, the SU-27 has a much higher flight altitude than both, especially that of the F-16 which only goes at 775m vs the SU's 1400m. The SU flies even above the F-4 which hovers at 1230m.
This matters mightily for survival, a lot more than the turn radius in my opinion, as that is the stat that keeps you out of range of AA, and even more so, ensures they can't get buffs to their accuracy even as you do get closer.
But otherwise do note as well that the F-15s share the same turn radius of 1550m.
Unless there are rare accidents, when penetrator hit directly ammo rack...
well, they don't always explode right away of course. But any effective hit penetrating the interior usually leads to ammo ignition, the severity depending on how much ammo is actually stored in the autoloader carousel. Sometimes they burn out, sometimes they toss the turret. The videos all usually cut because otherwise they might be too long i guess. Point is that soviet tanks are much more likely to suffer catastrohpic hits..., you will not find any videos where western tanks are destroyed in a similiar fashion.
My point was foremost that in WARNO you cannot just make it all totally realistic (also because many details about military hardware are classified) and the soviet tanks in WARNO are most certainly portrayed as much more durable than they would have been in reality, has to be this way because it would be too hard to balance otherwise.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Actual numbers are probably even higher, since not every loss is going to be documented with vid or pic.