They aren’t. Neither of which are out of the ARMOR ruleset.
You mentioned non-armor things earlier, which there are “sketch” [your word not mine] on a number of vehicles.
Vickers Mk7 firing L26 even tho it didn’t IRL [it can, and that’s why it has it for the BR justification].
I have other examples in a txt file on my desktop for multiple countries.
None of these are armor related tho, and armor rules aren’t ammo rules.
Ammo is used for balance reasons regardless, so it’s excepted even if they do a terrible job of such balance.
Thermals is something that a tank is equipped with or not, just like DU armor for the Abrams hull. So sources should be treated fhe same.
Except over 5 years ago rules were set specifically for armor, a very specific ruleset.
And as I said, unless we suggest changes, we’re stuck with this ruleset.
It is if you have no sources for it…
It isn’t up for debate whether the M1s since 1988 have DU armour, at least in regards to the turret.
I can honestly live with their decision regarding the armor if they do at least give the SEPv2 M829A3.
They are trying to push the SEPv2 into a glass cannon type archetype when it’s not mobile and sneaky enough to perform it, while not even having a true firepower advantage over it’s counterparts in the 2A7V and 122B+.
And yes I called the SEPv2 a glass cannon, because I don’t consider having 30% of your frontal arc being protected well armored.
In comparison the Arietes and Merkavas are paper cannons, the Leclercs and Type 10s are cardboard cannons and the Challengers are paper reinforced cardboard cannons.
they just lied their assess off saying that A3 “would prove no better” against Relikt/Kontakt-5 even if the round is precisely esigned to cut through those like butter and proven on trials.
can you give spall liners to type10 as well?
I have officially reached the third of the 5 stages of coping: bargaining.
Nah but for real. Even if they leave the round uneffective against Relikt but make it effective against K5 it would be a really good addition to the SEPv2. It would be able to UFP the B3 and 80U tanks, who can also easily lolpen the SEPv2, while still having to aim against weakspots on the BVM and 90M. Keeping Russian winrates in a decent enough spot.
And even if they don’t model the anti era tip at all, it’s still an extra 40mm pen at 0° and 30mm pen at 60°.
So if Gaijin is so convinced it won’t help, why not just give it to the SEPv2? Likely because they have no interest in getting the US winrates up.
F4S was the top selling aircraft for several month and the question isn’t if chinese pay more but which nation make the most money so yes chinese player spend hundred in wt but not on the chinese tech tree so they don’t care. look sweden, a lot of people are spending hundred for the cv90105 and the XS but real sweds aren’t that many but sweden get buffed bcs its a nation that bring a lot money to gaijin
Compromise being hammered into my head when I was age 6 - 10 oh so many years ago prevented me from ever going through the stages of grief.
I compromise on everything, even when my ideals & demands continue staying above the compromise.
Everyone content is better than just me happy.
One step at a time for these updates.
True, dude
WTD 61 is quite literally the Bundeswehrs central insitution for systems integration.
They are rhe very first to receive new weapons etc. and integrate them into vehicles im service with the army.
This entire article just seems like it’s filled with random excuses the higher ups pulled out of their asses, just to implement things in a way that fits their fantasy world.
Okay, so that says it’s in the turret, but that also doesn’t do anything to clear up the other source above that, since everything in the HA/D/etc versions could simply be also referring to this, and not to some other additional hull armor or whatever. Since that one just said “armor” everywhere in the text.
any thoughts about this one?
Ah yes, because me playing in my phantom at 11.7 getting uptiered to 12.3 seeing aircraft that are 20+ years newer with more modern everything every single match because it’s nothing but constant uptiers seems pretty fair. I love the transparency but I think the people who handling the balancing or lack there of is absolutely high on something.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19206A534.pdf
Yes, but they specify “turret sides” and “sides” separately, so then “front” would also be written “turret front” if that was the case right?
Doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would they ever issue a license for:
That would be the most bizarre license ever. It seems vastly more likely both are referring to the same armor, and the license is for the removal of it and the contamination from that very same removal of the same thing, in one license.
Non-DU removal does not cause radioactive contamination. as in they are removing the non-DU armor to have it replaced (from the context that it is DU armor since the license is for DU).
the removal of non-DU armor from turret might be contaminated since its proven (and already in game) that the turret has DU in it thus making the nnon-DU armor in contact with the Du armor.
because contaminants are not to be reused and are to be disposed of asap.
