Yes it does. Cope.
7 Likes
…and here come the mental gymnastics. XD
You’ve been proven wrong. Take the L, or look like an even bigger clown.
3 Likes
Oh alright (dunno why you didn’t just highlight that instead of 17 different random other things but fine).
So it was in hulls then. Not sure what there is to “cope” about, you finally gave an actual source, unlike earlier, so you proved it’s in the hull for the first time. Good job, bring it to Gaijin and open a ticket, and best of luck.
I’m here to challenge bad sources and bad claims. The previous source was bad, this one isn’t. W for everyone. Don’t include the other one in your ticket either, by the way. Only give them the purest, best sources, without watering them down with other stuff they can distract with. Quality > Quantity.
No, it was there the entire time you tried to deny it. But its funny watching you squirm and perform real time and completely false revisionism. :DDDDD
1 Like
I am referring to the old conversation I had with Necronomica, it was not in that other source we were talking about yesterday. Obviously this was in the source you posted an hour ago all along, yes.
“for the first time” lol. yesterday:
4 Likes
And have it fail because it doesnt state how effective it is of armour.
That’s like 300 comments earlier than our conversation yesterday, but okay cool. Why did you start talking about a shittier, more vague source later on, if you yourself saw that when he posted it much earlier?
Again, this is what allows Gaijin to cherrypick easy documents to refute and make it LOOK like they’re giving comprehensive replies to fool people.
Do not spam random documents of varying qualities mixed in with the gold standard ones. Do not give them cannon fodder for cherry picking.
If you know of a source like the good one above, stick to it, repeat it as needed, and give nothing of lower quality until they explicitly address it. It does not strengthen the claim by “supporting in a minor way” or whatever. It greatly weakens it by allowing bypasses. Include any others that are equally crystal clear on related points only (There’s a budget office one I saw that said armor improved survivability on like 3 specific models each, for example, for use in arguing > 0mm improvements on each step in game).
Probably the most tone deaf statement I’ve read for a while. So you are saying that JH-7A, JA37D, F-4J, J-8F, Mirage 2000D-R1, all 11.3. Tornadoes etc. are equally good as 12.0 or 12.3 jets that can face new top top tier jets. And again Gaijin is proving how out of touch they actually are.
2 Likes
Oh, we give them estimates. They don’t like any of them.
Because its estimates, they can be completely wrong. Even DU components can be not actually 100% DU, but rather a mix of DU and something else.
2S38 being added despite only seen in some trials, BMP-2M at 10.0, Su-27, T-80BVM being the most dominant MBT for quite some time and even still viable now because of its ERA, T-80B getting thermals even though it was only tested a few times, Su-25 eating absurd amount of damage, Ka-50, Ka-52 being literal cancer, Pantsir-S1 with 20 km of range… Need I go on?
Oh and I know you flagged my replies.
8 Likes
…and now you’re making an argument that never existed?
They’ve implemented estimates on many of the modern vehicles with classified armor. This is just them refusing to improve other tanks for no valid reason.
3 Likes
Yet there was plenty to take that assumption from, unlike Abrams where some may say it has like 800 KE armour while other say 500-600.
Congrats for aiming from above and thus negating the constructional angle. Did you not learn anything from my explanations?
Seems not.
Leopard 2s are more maneuverable than T-90s; a cold take.
Ah yes, comparing them to some of the least manouverable and slowest MBTs at top tier. Truly a great comparison, you’re really out-doing yourself right there bud (and last I checked, it wasn’t “Leopard 2s”, but the 2A7V, which as of today is the least manouverable Leopard 2 in the game).
2 Likes
The 500-600 numbers came from the Swedish non-DU, non-US M1 export tank offered for trial? Why should that be applied to a tank that is known to have a completely different armor layout?
380 MM came from Sweden Trials, not 500-600. And it should be applied only because they dont know its actual updated armour while beibg pressed on by time cap to add them so community wont go crazy?
The turret was pegged at 500-600 from that trial.
From above?
The test drive physically doesn’t let you aim from above, that’s aiming in-line with T-90A.
The gun’s resting position is -1 depression, so it should be aiming down when you look straight at T-90 from the same elevation.
And I aimed for the highest possible position that still had armor.
T-80 for illustration:
