Jump to content
13 minutes ago, JohnQ11939ChtBan said:

 

Wait, is nt the point of war thunder NOT to be WOT or armored warfare though ? 

This game isn't realistic at all and will never be, so we can stop pretending its other way around. All Patton tanks are broken, ammo types are purely represented and most of the gun performances are nerfed, so why bother about some made up numbers for Challenger?

Edited by FilipAleksanderS
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

I'll quote myself from another thread:

 

And again, I do get your point (I also stated this in my post). But in the end, that's all you can do about it. Wave the data in your hand and feel good about yourself.

Gaijin has invalidated itself in my eyes long time ago. If Challenger 1 is the first reason for you, then you obviously have a huge tolerance cap.

Edited by Phelpsiee
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FilipAleksanderS said:

This game isn't realistic at all and will never be, so we can stop pretending its other way around. All Patton tanks are broken, ammo types are purely represented and most of the gun performances are nerfed so why bother about some madeup numbers for Challenger?

 

And once more:

 

Spoiler



At least we can prove them wrong with actual data.

Once Gaijin implement vehicles which we can't find IRL data for, they have free reign to make anything as OP as they like. Look at all the controversy over Russian vehicles- IS-6s hidden armour values, made up ammunition for the Russian 76mm F-34 cannon, the ridiculous bounciness of sloped armour a few years ago which could make a T-34 immune to Tiger Is if they were even slightly angled, the convenient nerf for HESH from an insanely shady source and of course the APDS controversy with T-54s etc being immune to 105mm APDS if they are angled even slightly away from the shell's path (cough cough magical 61 degree modifier cough cough). They've blatantly made Russian tanks better with overperforming APHE slope modifiers, poorly modelled sloped armour, and all sorts of underhand nerfs to NATO tanks and ammunition. The M60's gun mantlet has been 127mm thick since release, despite many bug reports and community members actually going out to tank museums to measure it. 

 

This will be 100x worse if Gaijin start implementing tanks with completely classified armour & gun performance, and we won't even be able to prove them wrong with bug reports since there will be no unclassified data to prove them wrong with.

Players who call for newer classified tanks are naive at best, and completely stupid at worst

 

1 minute ago, Phelpsiee said:

 

And again, I do get your point (I also stated this in my post). But in the end, that's all you can do about it.

 

I guess the only option is to let Gaijin screw any semblance of realism or balance over in their neverending quest for more cash.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

 

And once more:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

And once more, where has the "proving Gaijin wrong" got us?

We have to make a huge anarchistic threads like the last one about APDS to be actually heard and there is still no 100% confirmation APDS will be fixed in 1.77, or is it? Last time they said, they will fix it, but have they said, that they will fix them in 1.77?

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

 

And once more:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Could not have said this any better. my main issue with this is, how 'balanced' are the values going to be for the chobham because this thing even up till 2001 was still impenetrable by other nations ammo. and that was only grade 1 chobham. this tank will use estimated numbers guarantee it, oh and lets not forget the CHARM 1 afpsds Depleted Uranium round which from a few sources state at least 500mm+ of pen. this will be one broken tank for 'balance' 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accurate documents on the performance of the Burlington armor array (the “Chobham” that’s on the Chally I), do not exist to the public or non military organizations. All the armor values you will see from this thing will be entirely made up or guessed. 

 

Basically its AW or WoT in WT... 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how long until we find out the Abrams has weak spots and armor holes good enough to allow a T-34-85 derp through the armor like they can with the M60?

 

3 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Accurate documents on the performance of the Burlington armor array (the “Chobham” that’s on the Chally I), do not exist to the public or non military organizations. All the armor values you will see from this thing will be entirely made up or guessed. 

 

Basically its AW or WoT in WT... 

And that is what worries me the most.

 

Since it still classified, this means Gaijin can screw with the armor of the Challenger I and Abrams and no one will be able to contest or show how broken their modeling will be.

 

Edited by Slayer3XD
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to explain Gaijin's formula. They want as much realize as possible but, they also want to make the game as balance as it can be based on realistic tanks. That is why we have Tiger 2s fighting T-44s. This is because T-34 fighting Tiger 2s would be realistic but would also be  extremely unbalanced for the T-34 players making it not fun to play.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slayer3XD said:

And how long until we find out the Abrams has weak spots and armor holes good enough to allow a T-34-85 derp through the armor like they can with the M60?

 

Dude, that s all that will need to kill it. BR-365A. A stands for Alien. It s based on alien technology. 

Edited by JohnQ11939ChtBan
  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of you fool yourself into thinking, that in current meta of small maps hull down king Challenger will be unbeatable. Yeah, Mk10 shows us, how OP with its APFSDS not-even-little-nerfed ammo it is.

 

Oh wait, it isn't..

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laviduce said:

I see that the nay-sayers are having a meltdown right now...

 

Have fun getting Roflstomped by Russian tanks which have no business killing an Abrams or Chally 1 from the front, because you can't prove that your tank should be immune to their guns- since, you know, all the information isn't available to anyone outside of the respective governments.

  • Upvote 12
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, all of you need to claim down. War Thunder isn't realistic, so deal with it. If you where expecting realism, then you should of quit your first match when it said your crew was KNOCKOUT.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding this tank is a terrible mistake. No documents for armour and will probably be missing it's L26 Jericho ammo as well, can't have it go through it's unnamed opponents like butter.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kamov said:

Adding this tank is a terrible mistake. No documents for armour and will probably be missing it's L26 Jericho ammo as well, can't have it go through it's unnamed opponents like butter.

yep I know full well L26 (CHARM) wont be in, thats still classified on some of its stats. but even then if they did add it, that thing would melt tanks from range.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it behaved and nice in here, else those ever popular red boxes are going to start springing up - and no one wants that to happen right? :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

 

Have fun getting Roflstomped by Russian tanks which have no business killing an Abrams or Chally 1 from the front, because you can't prove that your tank should be immune to their guns- since, you know, all the information isn't available to anyone outside of the respective governments.

 

1 minute ago, Kamov said:

Adding this tank is a terrible mistake. No documents for armour and will probably be missing it's L26 Jericho ammo as well, can't have it go through it's unnamed opponents like butter.

I mean, it's not like proper documentation has made them fix certain vehicles and ammo anyways. They kinda just do what they want when it comes to in game values. 

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

Well xxxx. 

 

Seeing as the armour and the performance data of later APFSDS shells issued to it is classified, I wonder what fantasy specifications Gaijin will give it. 

 

Inb4 it has armour holes that can be defeated by the T-54's APCBC-HE shell )))))) 

Ehmm... what were you saying?

5a85b6a2abe38_ChobhamType1.thumb.png.72f

 

1374113379_2865253585_969efb2e29_o.jpg

1439750170-fv4211-aluminum-chieftain-bur

Edited by Maverick966
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NinjaPirate said:

Can we now finally get regenerative steering? 

 

This is another aspect that needs to be mentioned. Gaijin applies the same generic principles to all the vehicles. You can shove an abrams, it won t matter, it will still operate a transmission box based on generic principles used by anything including gaz AA trucks from 1925. 

Edited by JohnQ11939ChtBan
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCloop123 said:

yep I know full well L26 (CHARM) wont be in, thats still classified on some of its stats. but even then if they did add it, that thing would melt tanks from range.

Maybe I'm wrong here but wasn't the L26 round not really all that great? I think compared to similar tanks, the Chally 1's L26 HESH lacked behind compared to the APDS-FSDU rounds.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MockingClone said:

 

I mean, it's not like proper documentation has made them fix certain vehicles and ammo anyways. They kinda just do what they want when it comes to in game values. 

 

We can actually find data on vehicles which are currently in the game and say, 'Hey, this isn't right- can you take a look at the information we've found and correct the problem?'. Whether Gaijin listens to that or not is another issue.

Now we can't find any data at all, or go out and measure armour arrays as Challenger tanks have always been kept under strict armed guard since their introduction to prevent espionage. 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maverick966 said:

Ehm what were you saying?

5a85b6a2abe38_ChobhamType1.thumb.png.72f

 

1374113379_2865253585_969efb2e29_o.jpg

1439750170-fv4211-aluminum-chieftain-bur

LOL no mention of the material types? no mention of its protection vs ammunition types? and again do you see the 'secret eyes only part' still classified even with this minimal amount of information and heck we still dont even know if this is Gen 1 Chobham or prototype version of chobham (before any mods) so again this stuff is highly estimated on both values and setup.

Edited by TheCloop123
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...