Some will ive seen some that don’t even want a Finnish F/A-18 cause its American
1 Like
True I shouldn’t actually make absolute statements like that, there will be some people who get mad about it just because, I would say the majority probably don’t care, the only time I personally have seen the majority actually seem to care is when another nation gets a variant that is more modern or considered to be “better”.
1 Like
I had a hunch gaijin could add CF-18 (CF-188) & Finnish F/A-18 with Air-to-Ground armament newer F/A-18 from USN
1 Like
Hello gentlemen.
First, I can’t talk about armor specifics. Even if it’s not technically classified, if it’s not available in the public domain I’m not going to talk about it. Actual protection is a closely guarded secret.
Second, Gaijin is a classic example of Dunning-Kreuger when it comes to modern armor and ammunition. Like everyone who has never seen the actual classified documents they have a very surface level understanding and an inability to accurately parse even the information available. In short. They think they know enough to make decisions when they do not. Dunning-Kreuger.
Third, the bullets are fake (Demarre is a very poor and inaccurate way to assess KE rounds). They load times for NATO 4 man tanks are fake (They admit to massaging load times for balance). So 1/2 of the issue is admittedly fake by Gaijin.
Given all of this. This whole protection debate is childish. The bullets = fake. The armor = limited understanding at best. Load times = fake. Their application of “realism” when it comes to armor comes off as childish at best and pernicious at worst. This is all silly. Just hubris on the part of Gaijin. They. Don’t. Know. What. They. Are. Talking. About. And they should know this.
I can’t really say anymore. I will just point you to the historical record where T-72/80/90’s can’t hold a candle to M1, Leopard II, Merkava, Challenger. Sure, training, variants, and such matter. But, I will also ask: IF a country can’t build a competitive computer, car, or airliner, why in the world would they make competitive Military equipment???
19 Likes
Thanks for the response man! I figured you wouldn’t be able to say much (which is fully understandable and can relate), but you’re the best guy so I figured I’d try. Hopefully some more limited open source information will point the development team in the correct direction.
Pretty good question for the finale.
1 Like
My issue with this is that they don’t NEED that. Especially since they are not likely to get it anytime soon. It. Is. All. Fake. All of it. Load times, ammunition performance, engine performance, how repairs work, how the crew works, how fire control systems don’t exist, how the guns are all freakishly (impossibly) accurate, how the engagement ranges are ridiculously short, I could go on all day. The thing is, the are applying standards unequally. They don’t care about the accuracy of which tanks are getting which rounds. They just give them bullets based on “balance”. They don’t care about load times for 4 man western tanks are nerfed into unrealistically slow times because they don’t want Russia/China tanks to be at an unfair advantage (They admit to using load times as a balancing mechanic) In the case of modern NATO/Allied tanks this is done to the point of ridiculousness. They will give us a fully functioning radkampfwagon when none was ever made, yet DU on hulls that were actually built is “unrealistic” Finally they only seem to care about this when it comes to armor. Like, everything else is acknowledged to be unrealistic (DeMarre for bullets, performance of engines and transmissions, etc) but armor must be absolutely as accurate as the sketchy documents say it is. It’s ridiculous. Childish even. Definitely has the feel of the wizard of Oz behind the curtain desperately hoping nobody notices that top tier tanks and planes are only as “realistic” as the game in which they exist.
14 Likes
Like realistic are only names, tags and insignias on tanks, rest is made up.
Nuh uh. Right here,you can go to Koblenz to see it for yourself.
He took wrong example but statement is true.
AFAIK the turret never actually worked. This was just a mockup
2 Likes
AFAIK the Radkampf never had a working turret. It was just a mockup
Yes, but thats like half of western tanks currently ig too. Not just german or soviet,these examples can be found across all nations where Gaijin gives them either mockup or partially functioning stuff.
1 Like
OFC
Not the point. The point is, this clearly justifies DU armor on the hulls of M1A1 HC and above Abrams.
8 Likes
Yes, but they refuse it and give us an idiotic statement about M1 suspension that couldn’t withstand additional mass at the front. It was stated and calculated ( poorly in your regards but still) that adding DU instead of raw steel wouldnt increase mass that significant + we have M1150 with this massive plow attached to the front and stick out by almost 5 meters, so suspension is not the case.
3 Likes
Preach.
The M829 are near nothing what they’re capable of, they discarded the fact the M829A3 has the anti-ERA tip as well as a large performance increase over the A2, the DU armor hulls have been confirmed as well through congressional reports along with the suspension performance increase with it, which is all open source, just no hard values which you won’t get whatsoever. Let me rephrase it so people don’t get butthurt, the reports removed the hull limit (in what, 2005?) at which DU hull armor was utilized but the point being it was still utilized nonetheless, and on a side note, I’m not a US main, I use everything. Anyways they use a test from the 90’s (an FMS version) to gauge all U.S.-service Abrams armor capability in-game right now and call it correct. All ridiculous. Anyways, I appreciate you chiming in.
Edit: I can’t spell today.
8 Likes
Plus the M1A1 suspension could hold the weight, it just wasn’t happy and didn’t have ‘acceptable’ levels of ride comfort and mobility. Also the M1A2 (and M1A1’s with DU) got an improved suspension with larger torsion bars and larger shock absorbers so they’re wrong about the M1 series not getting new suspension anyways. Not only that, but on the literal next page after this one it outlines that the M1A2 got a new track system that was 0.5 tons lighter than the previous, showing that there were very obviously weight decreasing programs so their “but the weight didn’t change” argument doesn’t work either.
8 Likes
Not only did they give it bigger/better suspension arms, they eliminated some of the grease fittings we previously needed to keep topped off. Made life a hell of a lot easier for me and the fellas.
5 Likes
Enter stage left discussion about Multipathing being not nearly as effective as it should be, which would be somewhat positive if it was modelled correctly as it’d become less of a “my stick is longer than yours” and more a issue of actual platform capability.
That said, something like that would mean you can’t get sniped right at the start of the match by a SARH.
To the best of my vague understanding of Multipathing (there are people much better qualified and more capable of explaining it accurately)
1 Like
Basic economics seems to be alien to you. Why would they build a competitive computer and car when they literally can’t sell it on the open market? It’s simply counter productive. They already sell airliners planes to a bunch of nations. I’m pretty sure they also have a cleaner record compared to that garbage Boeing is producing as of recently, despite the countries running them don’t have as good safety standards as the west does.
As for gaijin devs, I mostly agree. High levels of stubbornness and ignorance