Ground pounding baits F-104s to dogfight.
I never had issues with Hunters and I’ve been facing them since 2019, FGA9 was just the Hunters I faced previously just with AIM-9Es instead of SRAAMs.
This is due to the fact that the Swedish versions of these tanks received their own, completely new, reinforced armor package of their own production, both in the hull and and on the turret
Even putting the issue of the internal composites COMPLETELY aside for a moment - the external add-ons also performs worse on the A7V. As far as Im aware, Sweden bought a license to produce the MEXAS-H composite-addons for the Strv. Those were developed by a german Company, IDB (now part of Rheinmetall).
Are you honestly telling me that its more logical that in the 30 years since then, not only did the armor not get better, but instead somehow Germany became incapable of producing composites that were just as effective and are now using ones that are WORSE while being heavier instead of both packages being atleast equally good?? In what world is that supposed to make ANY sense??
4 Likes
Because they at least know we aren’t interested in excuses, more lies or them trying to gaslight us.
We are only interested in results. The correct, legitimate results.
I’d bet money on them not committing to righting these wrongs, though. They still have far too much ego.
2 Likes
One can only hope that this silence is them scrambling behind the scenes to put a statement together and approved by higherups to be released.
There is barely any hard data on these new MBTs because it’s all classified for obvious reasons. So ample secondary sources were provided to support armour upgrades, spall liners, reloads, etc. But the devs (or whoever is responsible for this) decided to use a document from 1993 that showed data of a prototype from 1989, which used armour that has been in development even longer.
A LtCol of the Bundeswehr stated the requirement for the 2A7V’s hull was to be ON PAR with the turret. Zwilling, who was supported by the Bundeswehr while writing his book, stated the hull received most modern D-Tech. That sure sounds like armour worse than swedish armour from 1993 (which was first produced in Germany and Sweden needed a license for), right guys???
Gaijin’s communication on these issues is attrocious. Why do reports need to be approved by a middleman, who potentially knows nothing about the topic, just to get even looked at? Why are there no employees people can contact about these historical issues? You want hard numbers on everything but that is simply not possible anymore unless you are asking for CLASSIFIED documents.
All we get after researching for hours and paying a lot for books, magazines, articles, etc. is “You are all wrong.”???
21 Likes
Personally, I think that 12.7 BR for 4th gen fighter aircraft carries 6x & 8x medium-range active radar homing BVRAAM but before integrated 5th generation infrared Air-to-Air Missile
I guess 13.3 for 4+ generation fighter aircraft with PESA radar, armed 4x & 6x 5th gen infrared Air-to-Air Missile and carries 6x ~ 10x active radar homing Air-to-Air Missile at new rank
This is the current problem, players are forced to spend a lot of time and money to buy materials, but for gaijin it is just“not a bug”
4 Likes
Genuinely one of the worst things I’ve ever read by gaijin, Bravo, you’ve really out-did yourself here.
12.7 really isn’t needed? F-15s, JAS-39s and Su-27s facing off against Phantoms and 23s is fine? Lol. Lmao.
The entire Abrams, Leo and Spall liner bit? Lol. Lmao
13 Likes
This dev blog is so bad it got me right back to the forums even after I started to avoid it because it’s not like Gaijin actually cares about what we say here.
I even had an entire rant I was preparing in my head but it’s just not worth the effort.
Your development process is shit Gaijin, fix it if you want anyone to actually care about top tier. I certainly don’t give a shit about it at this point. I’m planning on playing to 10.0 to most tech trees and moving onto other games if things don’t improve by then, if I even decide to go through with continuing.
3 Likes
Ah yes War Thunder is in the era of “I believe” is good enough of a source. Because OF COURSE the M1 weight goes up over the years with no armor improvements from the 80s, and M829A3 won’t be effective against ERA even knowing that was the entire point of M829A3. Sad to see this game become a propaganda piece and a money grab
4 Likes
I hate to say it, but these documents combined don’t prove which variants have improved KE/CE hull armour protection.
It’s just not positive proof.
The strongest evidence is the pictures of what seems to be the Abrams Haynes Manual by the Bovington Tank Museum. Problem is the text describing the ‘Heavy Armour’ has no citation and the surrounding text is clearly copy-pasted from a USAASC brochure, the original brochure DOES NOT specify depleted uranium armour.
Remember, if these documents say “Improved protection” they are prompting the obvious question “Oh? Which arrays? Protected against what?” because technically improved turret, but not hull, protection is technically still “Improved frontal protection”
Meanwhile the production T-80B getting thermals in game because a hand full of prototypes were equipped with them.
5 Likes
well you are correct to some degree. but it proves that the have DU armor AT ALL which Gaijin thinks they don’t att all.
The first image claims all versions after a specific year and model.
and there is also this:
1 Like
Yes, buffing the reload and adding M829A3 without its anti ERA performance isn’t a replacement for the correct armor.
1 Like
That’s wouldn’t work. Because in most cases of ground pounding or farming AIs, you are not flying straight and often has less energy and ammos. It is easier to be killed by F-104 with less energy than it is to dodge it while flying in a straight line and with energy if he is trying to kill you.
Hunter F.6 with better airframes and AIM-9Es…
Also, 2019 - 2020 9.7 - 8.7BR was pretty close to the 9.0BR meta so, there were still top speed meta.
It could literally keep up against almost any aircraft, and because it had a very decent gun, the x4 ADEN 30mm, it almost always meant death if the FGA.9 spammers were in your behind.
There are reasons why old elite squad and decent players basically has pretty good WR and KD on Hunter FGA.9.
I’m so sorry to say that but, Your argument just shows that you are pretty close to the average players in the 8.x - 9.xBR range.
It’s debatable if it’s a huge buff, because when you play the Abrams you usually lose your loader as soon as you stick your turret out and someone is watching.
1 Like
You mean the licenses, budget sheets, and government records showing armor upgrades corresponding with the generational armor improvements? Where they explicitly say improved frontal protection and then only add the qualifier of ‘turret’ to the side armor upgrade?
The Veterans Affairs source saying DU was in the hull of HA and A2s since 98? The license that clearly authorizes unlimited DU hulls?
Despite the SEP program saying 3rd gen armor packages was developed for it?
Despite the billions of dollars in testing, red tape, ripping the tanks apart, adding new armor and more weight…for not an improvement? You are just in denial now.
SAs have the 3rd generation package. There are government documents confirming this. The Haynes manual states 3rd gen DU inserts are in hull and turret.
3 Likes
6 Likes
Or how the M247 is a functional weapon instead of being completely useless as it was in real life.
I’d honestly just wait for SEP v3 which IMHO will definitely include improved hull armour.
I mentioned this.