Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Haswell

Kurganets is coming to town

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Silentstalker said:

And sorry for the offtopic Haswell. I hate it myself, it's not nice of me to derail existing threads.

All is good, an off-topic comment here and there doesn't hurt as long as not everything becomes off-topic.

16 hours ago, Azdule said:

From a further look at the renders - sides are covered with large ERA blocks?  So now comes the question, is this actual ERA like the Russians / Americans have or is it composite slabs that the rest of the lines have?  Cos if it's the former, will make it pretty decently armored vs HEAT / ATGMs.  If it's the latter, then everything will pen that like a knife through butter.

They LOOK like the slabs found on the T-15, which are now effectively useless thanks to 0.33 armor changes. I can't imagine the Kurganets getting ERA sides when the T-15 doesn't, since that will mean the Kurganets gets better overall protection than most things.

 

Are those mini rockets on the pop up launcher?


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full article is up: https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-kurganets-25

Quote

In Armored Warfare, Kurganets-25 will be a Tier 9 Premium Tank Destroyer. Now, considering this is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle in real life, you might be asking at this point why we chose to introduce it as a TD. The answer is that given the presence of many unique weapon systems on this vehicle, we decided to give it a rather unique battlefield role, akin to the QN-506. Nevertheless, it will be possible to deploy Mechanized Infantry.

In short, this vehicle will play sort of like a Terminator, only with less armor but more (or, rather, more diverse) firepower.

screen2

 

Click the image to open a larger version

 

But before we get into any details, the usual disclaimer:

The numbers below are very preliminary as the vehicle has not been properly tested. They are sure to change and should only be discussed as an indicator of how we’d like to set the vehicle up. With that being said:

Protection-wise, it will of course still be something of a heavy IFV and that usually means steel armor that can’t take a lot of damage. Fortunately, Kurganets will have two things going for it:

  • Unmanned turret
  • Afganit APS

That’s right; this TD will be protected by roughly the same system as everyone’s favorite, T-15, including the option to activate the Supercharged hard-kill APS ability. Despite the lack of actual armor (which will be roughly comparable to BMP-3M), Kurganets will offer good survivability at long ranges. Given its class, it’s obviously not intended for short-range combat and if it finds itself in one, either it’s not being used correctly or the game is already in its last seconds.

screen3

 

Click the image to open a larger version

 

Its mobility will correspond to what is written above – as a Tank Destroyer, the vehicle will not be extremely agile or fast with its maximum speed being 70 km/h. Compared to some other TDs, it will still be quite mobile, but not as much as an AFV.

Where it will really shine though will be its firepower, which will consist of three weapon systems:

  • 57mm short autocannon with mediocre rate of fire but solid damage and penetration (for an autocannon, that is), intended as a support weapon against light targets or MBT rear armor (like T-15’s 30mm gun)
  • Bulat ATGMs with small but potent thermobaric warheads and with limited agility but high flight velocity, intended as another support weapon (much like QN-506’s rockets)
  • Kornet ATGMs with the same performance as those of BMPT Mod.2000, only with two launch tubes instead of four (intended as the vehicle’s main weapon for long-range combat)

The turret will also feature average gun depression and excellent elevation (-5/+60 degrees). Last but not least, the vehicle will have average camouflage factor and class-appropriate viewrange (but will excel in neither).

screen4

 

Click the image to open a larger version

 

All things considered, the Kurganets TD will be an excellent fire support platform the way it was intended in real life. Thanks to its diverse firepower, it’ll be able to deal some damage at most ranges, even though it is intended to fight at longer ones. Despite some similar characteristics with its heavier T-15 counterpart, it won’t be able to fill the same role by protecting the team with an MBT-like armor, but will instead have to stay behind a bit to do what it does best. Mechanized Infantry will, of course, only add to its value to the team and with the recently introduced ability to direct infantry fire, we are looking at a very potent damage dealer that will surely come in handy in any group.

 

  • Upvote 3

Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood why an as-designed IFV is classed as a TD in Armored Warfare.


 

"If you were not birthed with claws or fangs, store bought will do just fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, vehicle class designations in the game are pretty arbitrary and hardly consistent, there is zero reason why a TD can't do AFV things when they both rely on vision control, mobility, and constant DPM by virtue of long periods of uninterrupted fire. See my squishiness dichotomy post for more reasoning: https://armoredlabs.net/index.php?/topic/61-the-squishiness-vehicle-dichotomy-getting-away-from-vehicle-classes/

 

13 hours ago, Haswell said:

Given its class, it’s obviously not intended for short-range combat and if it finds itself in one, either it’s not being used correctly or the game is already in its last seconds.

This comment in the article irks me greatly, because it's yet again a case of vehicle class dictating suggested playstyles. It's understandable though that the articles have to be dumbed down for the average players; more advanced and experienced players should learn to steer away from this mental priming in order to play vehicles to their fullest potential. SS explained this in great detail as well back in the 0.33 rebalancing plans thread:

On 7/29/2020 at 3:13 PM, Silentstalker said:

One thing caught my eye though, the TD vs LT discussion, so a quick response. These articles are meant mostly for non-high-end players for kinda obvious reasons. First, players who can truly see the consequences of some choices are very rare. Second, most players who read these articles are average (by the very definition of the word). Hm that sounded a bit weird, but you know what I mean.

My point is, for most players, you gotta define expectations first, because that's the starting point where the opinions will come from. Most players do not think in shades of grey, they think black and white, or, more specifically, black or dark grey (black with some leeway) and white or light grey (white with some leeway). So, in this specific case, defining TDs as snipers is an important aspect because it ensures that players will try to first play them as snipers and then move towards the grey zone when they find out this isn't working all THAT well. Likewise, defining LTs as flankers is important because while the same players will start that way and then gradually move towards the TD role.

The reality is that both classes basically occupy more or less the same niche of "second line fighters". TDs (excluding some weird shit like BMPTs) are better at longer distances, LTs at shorter ones, but the truth is that the role of a "flanker" is a fictional one, at least for LTs. LT flankers are a myth - they don't work because the maps are too small. So what you have instead is something like faster "marksmen" and less agile and more fragile "snipers". But, if you describe it like this to wider audience, we're getting to what I described above - players don't think in scales of grey, they think in absultes. In other words, they will understand "kinda the same" as "totally the same", which it is not, there will always be nuances, either in different characteristics or indirect ones (for example, TDs don't typically carry ERA, which is pretty significant given the upcoming changes). Getting really deep into these statistics and rebalance, you'll start discovering some really weird shit, such as the Type 16 is effectively a wheeled Light Tank and a better LT than some other LTs to boot, yet it must retain its old class because it would completely mess the basic narrative of the game - when all vehicles are the same, it will become incredibly difficult for new players to orientate (and yes, we are getting new players, every day).

 


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

I have never understood why an as-designed IFV is classed as a TD in Armored Warfare.

The game doesn't focus much on fighting infantry, or deliver said infantry to specific point to archive sort of "point territorial conquest". Also there no need to support MBT in the same way as it is envisioned in IFV usage doctrines. Every vehicle simply has to fight other vehicles. At the game start and for a while Termi and T-15 were AFV, Kurganets simply belongs to place, where T-15 already is, adding infantry didn't change much things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...