has anyone done a FOI request for a report on the T-80U?
I kind of expected this, since for some time now the devs haven’t cared about realism. They only care about making quick and easy money and maintaining this stupid illusion of balance that’s falling apart. I suppose the devs think that reducing the effectiveness of Kontakt 5 is enough in the game, so only top-tier tanks will be able to kill Soviet tanks 15 years older with hull shots. Besides, improving those bullets would force them to change the BR of some tanks, and it’s more than clear that the devs would rather die than have to change the BR of many tanks (maintaining the illusion of balance).
2 Likes
At this point you would question why Gaijin bug managers are not designing weapons. They seem to have this intrinsic knowledge of how missiles, darts work while ignoring actual test and real world data.
They have to feel stupid with some of the replies they come out with.
However knew as soon as they wanted the whole book/manual/report they were never going to make the change.
2 Likes
Sounds like need a clip from The Slow Mo Guys of an L27A1 defeating K-5 to progress the bug report
2 Likes
next up in ukraine… Dan puts himself in significant danger
in fairness he is ex-military
4 Likes
So to buff L27a1 to reliably defeat K5 we need to access specific classified testing results and dates - sigh ain’t no hope they’ll just buff Relikt again, i’m about done with any hope of getting any actual positive performance increase for western vehicles
1 Like
This is wild to me, and genuinely infuriates me.
no matter what information we provide it wont be enough because they refuse to use common sense. In this situation the devs need to realise that theres no legal information that can be provided on the subject matter, and thus they need to put 2 and 2 together in order to realise that; the design of the dart lines up with what we are saying. The evidence we have proves the existence of T80U’s in the UK’s hands before the development of the L27a1, and that the minister of procurement himself said they were bought for “testing purposes” which proves the whole point of why they were bought.
If they were not bought for the testing of a new anti-era round, what were they bought for?.. i’m sure at that point we knew the capabilities of T80, its just the ERA that mattered, so logic says that it was bought to test the era and the rest of the gubbins on it.
But no… we don’t live in common sense land. We live in a land where bug report managers ask for information thats very likely classified because of their sheer reluctance to put logical evidence together to come to an obvious conclusion.
It kinda feels like the Typhoon bug reports all over again
3 Likes
At this point they want the exact date of procurement of the T80U’s, but the only public information is acknowledgement of their purchase for research in 1994, not the actual date they were procured in 1992… Without this information i guess we are yet again at a wall which results in CR2 not getting its anti-era capability on L27a1.
Logic and common sense are out the window on this one.
L27A1 was already in development before the T-80U was acquired.
so we have to prove what part the T-80’s had in the development, if any.
It’s funny gaijin is saying all this while having absolutely no information on how effective M829A3 is vs ERA statistically… we have a visible anti-ERA head and sources stating it should have improved performance vs KE ERA but suddenly when it’s not one of the countries that makes them a fortune off premium sales making an educated guess is too hard…
Well hang on.
The first paragraph.
‘CHARM 3 exceeds the Single Shot Kill Probability required by SR(L) 4026 - my bold and underlined - AGAINST T-80U WITH KE SENSITIVE EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOUR (ERA)’
Is the gentleman at the other end of the tech report pipeline actually reading the same text I am?
It doesn’t say ‘estimated’ or ‘based on our limited understanding of K-5 it might work.’ The doc is quite specific and clear as to the type of tank (T-80U) and the armour array (ERA - T-80U had K-5).
I am gonna do it. I’m going to summon @Smin1080p_WT
Otherwise we need to look at ALL darts in the game and check there is proof of ‘them actually being used to shoot at a tank’. After all, one rule for one…
Have we got evidence of 3BM42 actually penning the lower plate of CR2 in real life - no? - right lads - nerf that round to rubber!
5 Likes
Their claim is they want specific numbers (what specific numbers??? Is there any document ever that would offer specific numbers in the way they want?)
Spoiler
No evidence of modern APFSDS having been tested against BT-5, it follows that BT-5 is impenetrable to modern APFSDS
1 Like
The “Specific numbers” in question is them asking for classified material, which will not be provided for obvious reasons effectively dragging this on far longer than it should be.
Grrr - general noises of discontent not aimed at anyone in particular.
2 Likes
Hey. This has already been answered. The T-80U with Kontact-5 arrived after the reports. So it currently doesnt seem possible it was tested during these reports. They also dont mention Kontact-5 specifically.
Please keep the insults out of this. Its not going to lead to anyone taking a post seriously.
Not only was the report passed it was reveiwed in full by the devs. The answer still stands.
Im going to give this a final warning. Please stop trying to instigate personal whitch hunts with false information.
No it was not. The report was passed to the developers. This was the response FROM the developers. Not a Tech Mod, QA, Alpha Tester or anyone else. Directly from the devs.
The personal attacks, insults and attempts to instigate whitch hunts on spesific individuals simply because you are frustrated with the outcome is not acceptable.
1 Like
Because they dont know what the Russians called their new anti-kinetic ERA?? Even having a T-80U (which again they had) wouldn’t magically make them know the russian internal designation for their own ERA.
They mention T-80U with KE sensitive ERA specifically.
2 Likes