I’m going to take it that English is not your primary language, so a little word. we often shorten technical terms to the point that it’s still understandable, and gets the point across but have it be as short as possible
i was referring to adding more armor on the hull not the turret
as in heavier hull not turret
turret ingame is based on the swedish trial turret which is far worse than its actual armor
Gaijin used these values from the Swedish test trial
exactly what i said
WOW, the message got reported for a SECOND TIME? Wtf.
would explain the lack of DU armor since export models arnt given that. (yes that means the M1A1 AIm wouldn’t get DU armor)
Yep, and the Swedish were mad about it too, which was one of the main reasons why they didn’t go for the M1 during the trials
they did however improve the armor package to match the HA level armor and more CE protection(mostly in the hull) and all around, which also mean the AIM hull should get a drastic CE protection increase and partially KE
what was the paragraph you sent again?
Here’s the whole thing without being truthful about the last sentence on the hull devblog.
Will Gaijin put down his arrogant head and modify and correct American equipment?
True but Gaijin does fantasy builds all the time in it’s models. F15’s are a prime example, they have about half their IRL performance. They could be more reasonable. I was half convinced on a longshot Gaijin were going to buff the Abrams armor after nerfing it’s turret ring by making the entire basket a turret ring.
Out in fantasy land those Abrams frontal fuel tanks would be perfect subjects for spaced armor in a reverse pike nose configuration. It’s begging for it. What’s to bet that hasn’t already been done if a gaming nerd thinks it makes sense just by looking at those voids.
Just to be clear, that’s not what I’m asking for I just think it’s a good example of how good it could be as opposed to 350mm KE protection off of a 700mm cavity + the fuel tanks voids. Engineers could probably make it 1.5 meters of kinetic protection if they wanted to, given the available space.
They could do the 5 hulls from the school as an event but make it rare like the E100 or Maus. That would make sense.
They addressed this already, and the TLDR of it is that the X-ray view is not actually correct, as it displays the visual model and not the damage model. They even showed an image of the actual damage model and it was only 2 flat circles/ ring at the bottom and top of the turret basket respectively.
It still effectively results in the same outcome, though.
not really, It seems pretty close to what it was before TBH.
That’s what I was saying, though? That the turret basket still gets hit regardless?
F-15s have all of their IRL performance, I know this cause I was the one that bug reported them to get that performance.
Abrams turret ring has never changed since its introduction, that’s part of the problem.
Abrams fuel tanks are placed there specifically because it improves crew survivability and it’s a convenient place for them.
No. F15’s go mach 2.9 at sea level. In game they break apart at half that speed at between 3-4000 meters.
One of the Aardvark models was able to go mach 3.2. This game is grossly inaccurate.
To me that’s an open admission to the corruption in this game and justifies my cancelled subscription.
@SoundWave777
I see you’re calling the United States Air Force liars.
Sorry but mach 2.5 at higher altitude is the maximum F-15s go.
Same for the Varks.