It’s just the usual 1 step forward, 3 steps back with Russian Bias foolishness mixed in.
43 Likes
They just want Sweden to be a better Germany than Germany is at this point, otherwise they wouldnt be using a 20 year old study on a 2019 tank @Stona_WT @Smin1080p
35 Likes
Oh, and you wanna talk about different armour packages?
Here it is;
Sitting on top of a Leopard 2 TVM (which last I checked, ISN’T THE 2A7V), do you notice anything strange… maybe how the geometry and shape of the add-ons is different?
How about looking at the production version then… from which the Strv 122 received its add-on modules?
The same armor that the Leopard 2A5/6 adopted? The TVM Mexas 3rd generation addon was never adopted.
Wooow, who would’ve thought, it’s IDENTICAL TO 122s, NO WAAAY.
Leopard 2A7V presented in the game is based on the “B” package. However, according to the data we have, this is not the case
So the base armor without the addon provides the 600+ KE armor value that is known from D-tech? In game thats currently not reflected.
91 Likes
“well these sources say something we dont agree with, so we will ignore them and continue to do what we where previously doing anyway” @Smin1080p @Stona_WT
61 Likes
Still nothing for China. VT-4A1 is so weak though buffed, still unable to beat other 11.7s, while have so many other problems.
12 Likes
https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/M1A2_Abrams_SEP_American_Main_Battle_Tank_(MBT)
Well, Gaijin isn’t getting any more money from me! :D
115 Likes
Another awful move by gaijin with 12.7 reply. NO SHIT 12.3 planes can fight each other just fine. BUT what 11.3 -11.7 experience and overall compression? Have you thought to give an anwser on why its not fun to fight 12.0 and 12.3 planes in a 11.3? The reply is most bland thing ever missing the real issue of 12.0 12.3s wtih vastly more modern weaponry being so low ruining experience for a lot of lower planes.
29 Likes
Oh they’ve certainly saved me any temptation for further expenditures.
They should’ve named the whole patch Click-Bait… not just the Premium M1A1 that’s worse than the tech tree variant.
24 Likes
OMG! Some kind of armor for Ariete tanks in WT, can’t believe it’s true, what about transformig of 5.5 t of WAR pack from “heavy air” type into actual armor?
16 Likes
Could you spoiler the sources?
1 Like
Amazing. I’m truly impressed that I’ve dug up 3-4 different sources that estimate the Abrams has anywhere between 457mm of hull armor up to 750mm of hull armor on the LFP and you guys ignore all of them and refuse to implement any of them. At this point I’d even settle for Clancy’s Armored Cavalry source giving an estimate of 18-inches of RHA equivalent on the lower front plate. Next you’re going to tell me that the SEPv3 whenever you get around to adding it will have the exact same armor effectiveness.
Additionally how on earth would M829A3’s anti-ERA tip not actually make a difference in its ability to defeat ERA? Excuse me?
66 Likes
I’m sorry devs, but armour talks aside, the conversation about the reload rate is so arbitrarily linked to win rates, it is severely affecting some tanks because of the link to win rates.
This rate of fire is possible considering the size and weight of most shells for 105 mm guns are comparable to shells for a 120 mm gun. This is due to the fact that the 120 mm cartridge case is partially combustible, while the 105 mm case is metal. For example, a 105 mm shell with an M900 projectile has a length of 1003 mm and a weight of 18.5 kg, and a 120 mm M829A2 has a length of 982 mm and a weight of 20.3 kg.
Can we talk about how ONLY the Abrams gets the arbitrary 6.5s stock/5s ace reload rate for a 105mm and 120mm cannon (with the exception of Vickers Mk.1 and British 120mm cannons) while there are other tanks of similar caliber and shell weight that reloads at 7.8s stock/6s aced and even worse still at 8.7s stock/6.7s aced for a few outliers like Merkava Mk.1 through 4, Leopard 2K, AMX-32/40, OF-40, AMX-30, Leopard 1 and so on.
This is probably the worst take ever “in the name of balance”.
Standardise all known non-autoloading NATO 105mm and 120mm cannons (M256, Rheinmetall 120mm, L7A1, L7A3, M68)
- Yes, all standardise 6.5s stock/5s aced
- Yes, all standardise 7.8s stock/6s aced
- No, bad idea
0
voters
12 Likes
Because it would actually make Relikt equipped tanks vulnerable for once, and the Russian MOD cant have that happen
38 Likes
Are you surprised? The Swedish trials is what they argumented to keep the Leclerc on it’s Toyota truck level of armour.
21 Likes
Trueeeeeee.
Enjoy to die to R-27s, R-73s, AIM-9Ms, in your Phantoms 🤡
33 Likes
Gaijin once again makes an incredibly tone deaf reply to a myriad of issues the community is passionate about, color me surprised
26 Likes
You forgot to mention “without BVR” because aim7 right now is barely usable trash
6 Likes
What a load of …insert expletive here.
For those wishing for the highlights.
Apparently - the modern US 120mm ammunition designed to defeat modern armour and ERA - according to Gaijin it doesn’t make a difference. But they might add it if the reload buff doesn’t work. WELL WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE OR NOT?
Leopard 2A7 - developed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY after the Swedish trials - apparently has gained the ability to travel back in time and use armour from 1995. I mean the Germans are clever at this sort of thing but time-travel is still beyond them.
‘No reliable evidence for…bla bla bla.’ Is that reliable evidence or ‘reliable evidence’ according to the dev’s preconceptions. These are the people who refuse to accept some of the most well-researched public sources (Janes Defence for example) but will happily use some rando Russian blogger article as a source.
Not moving BRs to 12.7? I don’t doubt the ALREADY potent 12.3s are all pretty much equal in terms of their ability to stomp all lower tiers and compress the top tier to an almost insane degree. Raising the BRs benefits more than just the immediate bracket - dur!
Crumbs - I can’t WAIT to see what gems we have on Challenger 2. Get a hollywood scriptwriter to fart out the spiel next time - it’ll be more grounded in reality for one thing.
Bloody hell. Just when you think they can’t get any worse…
57 Likes
Fixed:
- Ess on challenger 2 coming out the wrong exhausts
- Challenger 2 (All): Turning issue when at low speed. + Low speed turning gearing issues
- Challenger 3 (TD) turret floor invisible and missplaced.
- Challenger 3 TD turret bustle ammunition not exploding/venting.
- Challanger 3 (p) armor missing and not aligh with the model
- Challenger 3 (p) wrong weight
- Challenger 3(P) name not suitable
- Challenger 2F and TES wrong ammo count in Enforcer RCWS belts
- Challenger 2 BN Incorrect commander optics magnification
- Ammunition armoured stowage bins too thin
- TES Incorrect Additional Side Armour Composition
Resolved:
- Incorrect side hull armour protection - LINK
As mentioned in the article, we will have further details and answers to share later.
3 Likes
shame that nearly everything else duck all didnt get addressed, it is nice for the Challenger, but you guys are just blatantly disregarding the other nations
30 Likes