Not only NATO, China suffers too
VT-4 is still imcomplete now, Russian bias just annoys every one except Russia and Sweden/
I can’t understand what they got from the Swedish that they keep giving OP vehicles to Sweden tech tree
8 Likes
So the production T-80B we have gets a thermal sight that was only tested on 2 confirmed T-80Bs???
Like I said. It just shows that the “we can’t be sure if the improved hull armor was actually applied to in service/production vehicles” Gaijin uses against the Abrams hull armor is just straight up bullshit.
1 Like
Do you want to downtier a T-80B? Make it a stronger armour serial production one? Currently T-80BV has weaker hull than T-64BV. I dont like such things in adding or removing something as that primarly meand adding or making BR lower. As someone who played T-80B (i didnt use thermal 80% of tye time as I forgot it was there) it would be insane at a lower BR or with stronger armour (for example RN on 10.3 theres several shells that can lol-pen it anywhere, all while T-72B or T-90A dont share that but these two dont share good mobility or existing reverse)
One is thermals being put on early production serial vehicles, other is something that was made first on prototype.
IIRC Agava was approved though not made in big numbers. Agava 2 was tested in 1987 and approved for mass production, however actual mass production didnt start up to 1990 or 1991.
Dude common italian bias existe, you got a 60 tone mbt with a magnificent 80mm gigantic almost flat frontplate, a exellent top speed of 65 km/h (that he never reach bcs of its weak engine) and a gun firing DM53 (all gun fire a similare round)
2 Likes
80mm air but weighs 5 tons
Can’t stop laughing when I saw this in changelog🤣
9 Likes
They spend quite a lot in video games.
At this point, I’ve seen different videos, animations, publications etc claim that DU is in turrets, and then no no DU is in the front plate, and then no no, DU is actually the material the SPALL liner is made of because it’s ductile and acts like extremely tough rubber or lead.
It seems clear that DU was used for something or other somewhere but that nobody seems to have any idea how or where, and it’s entirely possible the army is actively planting false info in places as far as I’m concerned.
Even if you did know where, do you know if it replaced something else? If it’s as a spall liner, would it even increase mm of pen protection much at all? Etc. Seems largely useless for developers.
Separately from DU specifically though, obviously the armor would have improved in some way overall, and sources do confirm that, even if it’s not clearly from DU. I think they should probably ignore DU, but just increase the armor quality modifier some amount instead and call it a day.
I can’t wait to see american main to explain to me how the abrams is as heavy as an ariete while being 3x time more armored, probably cause italy got some heavy air armor
1 Like
How is the Abrams hull armor only made first on prototype, when Gaijin’s own precious document says that there were at least 5 DU equipped Abrams hulls at different US tank schools.
And later in 2006 they acquired an unlimited amount of licenses for DU arbams hulls.
I don’t care about the T-80B keeping it’s thermals. I just want equal and fair treatment between Russian and NATO vehicles in terms of sources.
And the T-80B just happens to be a vehicle that shows this isn’t the case.
3 Likes
Why would the U.S. Army fill out false information for DU in the hulls of M1s? You know how complicated licenses are and amendments? There are VA (Veteran Affairs) documents on the adverse effects of DU in the turret and hulls of M1 Abrams.
hahaha, yea no we know for a fact that there is DU in the turret, the only thing up for question is the hull.
To mislead enemies, obviously, into making mistakes designing countermeasures, etc. Didn’t think I had to spell out that one, should have been a bit self explanatory… Other countries lacking any actual espionage will at a minimum be reading the same stuff you are for your video game, but for their actual design needs.
Also, if the government thinks some secret is important enough (no idea if this is one of those cases or not), they would absolutely be willing to pay out a significant number of compensations for VA patients for exposures and harms that didn’t actually exist, if it covers for their secret weapon/armor/feature. ESPECIALLY if someone actually did get sick from DU but it was just DU in a slightly different location, and it’s just allowing them to merely file their medical claim with the wrong location.
1 Like
I’m very confident that we Chinese players spent much more, so what do we get for China tech tree? An imcomplete trash full of bias and deceiving and named as our proud VT4A1
By saying
I didnt mean DU armour in hull is wrong and something non existent, only meant it as different cases.
Theres both English study on Agavas (though lacking in some info and making mistakes), russian study on soviet thermals, photo of different T-80Bs with it (3 different looking tanks, though I suspect 2 different photos is just one tank being recamoflauged.
There wont be for simple reason: knowledge. Usually about older soviet/russian tanks you can get a lot of data which simply wont contridict itself. However that doesn’t seem to be the case with any other country, at least is what I have seen. For example one can tell M-60 all had spall liners while other can argue that only small bunch of M-60A3 had them, this is just an example. I have seen a lot of proofs of DU armour in Abrams and I believe them, however I didnt yet see a number showing protection values.
However T-80Bs some having Agava is confirmed, just like T-80Us having them, heres some examples of sources: english though not perfect source
2 Likes
Why Pakistan equip VT4A1 to encounter Indian’s T-90MS if VT-4 is such fragile and has a weak fire of 7 rpm and only 570mm pen? Just bias
1 Like
You should learn how to run a game, accepting reasonable suggestions from us and make us happy, not making what you think is “real” . Now I understand how the Soviet Union collapsed
Although I think players are more correct here than Gaijin is about the historical facts, when it comes to game design, not tank research, players are virtually never better at designing games than the devs are.
- You have usually no training. The people hired for this have relevant training.
- You have no access to billions of rows of highly relevant data to inform your decisions. They do.
- You have stronger biases for a certain nation etc. you main in and other things that personally give you advantages to win. You’re not actually in it for a better healthier game. In this case, USA mains are howling, but if you gave them everything they wanted no questions asked, you’d be pissing off MORE players who are currently quiet and content, who main other nations. And you’d be in a worse position than before as a company…
Everything you’ve just said is complete speculation and conspiracy. Do you seriously think the U.S. government would lie about DU in the M1s hull? VA claims and veterans affected by the DU are not lying. My Step-father is personally affected by this issue.
Obviously it’s speculation, lol, if I could prove it easily for just a forum thread, it wouldn’t stop any nations from making mistakes, who are much mroe organized and methodical about this than War Thunder players are.
Do you seriously think the U.S. government would lie about DU in the M1s hull?
Yes, I just explained why. Which you didn’t actually reply to other than to go “Srsly?!”
VA claims and veterans affected by the DU are not lying.
How would you know that? A step father being sick for DU in a turret doesn’t mean that it wasn’t perhaps DU in a hull, instead. Or not DU at all but lead poisoning that is misinterpreted (or filed incorrectly on purpose). Etc. etc.
My point is just that there’s quite possibly a good reason nobody can seem to agree on exactly where and what for the DU was used, and these are examples of why it’s a pretty good policy to request multiple sources and to be conservative when sources disagree on things like this.
If they want to make no major historical mistakes, again I suggest merely generically increasing the armor quality multiplier, not saying what the reason is, and leaving it at that.
1 Like
Gaijin keeps repeating the bullshit that China tanks are all just modified T-72s
So where are the auto-loader protections that all T-72s have but missing on ZTZ-96/99s?
Why T-72s ammunations can be covered by armor more than half but Chinese tanks can’t while they actually can in reality?
Why then give T-72s side era but refuse to give VT-4 even we sent them the brochure from Norinco tells that side era and lower plate era named FY-2T and FY-2SH developed for VT series tanks is actually existed?
Besides,they like to talk about REALISTIC, then:
Why 6-9 rpm means 9 for russian T-80s but 8 for China?
Why AFT-09’s manual says turret rotates no less than 15°/s means 15° with ace crews?
Why JH-7A needs to wait for a whole version to get 2xKH-29Ts rather than 4xKH-29TEs as reality?
As current situation, they care NOTHING about realistic or balance, they only care about bias that enhancing Rus and Sw
9 Likes