I don’t see the harm in having an image like that
I think they dont want us showing that because of the real possibility of corpses or sensitive military stuff being shown
Oh yh same images. Fair enough.
Yh Challenger 2 Vs 2x T-80 in August 2024. Challenger destroyed both T-80s with armour stopping the incoming rounds, no injuries to crew and C2 was returned for repairs.
The commander hatch was from a helicopter as they were crossing into Kursk. They said the Heli flew over them low, spotted them, did not fire and kept flying before returning sometime late and opening fire with rockets bouncing off the hatch causing no further damage or injuries. The crew actually spoke about this in an interview about how good the C2 is,
The Ukrainians literally said they were the best for infantry support. They would sit 1-2 miles away and fire HESH at trenches, bunkers, fortifications, tree lines and just obliterate them completely.
Also, the losses of Challenger 2s were due to the tanks being overfilled with HESH mainly, this was because when they went into Kursk, they thought there would/may be supply line issues and not be apply to re-supply with ammo so they took extra which was an overfill causing them to explode easily.
5 Likes
Check ur DMs for video
1 Like
I’m not sure when it happened, but driver controls and additional power systems has disappeared from SM CR2.
Best narrative is to render GB as an anecdotal Nation to play.
1 Like
A lot of times these modules are added on the dev server and then dissapear before live.
It happened on the Challenger 1s too a few patches ago, same on the T80s.
Although Smin did say it was final, but who knows
1 Like
Oh I could probably hazard a guess:
‘We tested firing L27A1 in War Thunder and we think what we just saw/felt/heard is a Marketing Lie.’
A few seconds later - they discover that the workplace cafeteria has a new skylight as the T-80U’s turret comes back to Earth…
8 Likes
Yes, I remember.
The developers’ responses were always just stopgap measures, which was frustrating for us players.
at 10.7??? cause I’ve been working on the bomber line; I also did forget the Buccaneer Sb2 with the ATGms.
i must admit I am biased to teh jag.
Glad to see folks enjoy it, I’, a huge fan of the GR3 at 9.7
also to be on topic did they reject the l27A1 report for anti ERA? The single purpose it was invented for’
11.3. Used alongside the 11.7 Challenger 2s. (which is why keeping it at 11.3 by denying it ALARM or AJ37 is so stupid)
Buc S2B has always been a let down for me in GRB, but with the tweaks coming this major. The AJ168s are looking quite good actually.
I feel like you may have gotten a wire cross somewhere?
Who doesn’t love the Jaaaaaaaaag…
But I wouldnt use it over the Tornado GR1 at 11.7
I still cant work out why the Harrier GR1, GR3 or Hunter F6 aren’t 9.3 in GRB
Ah right I never knew it was 11.3 man, as I said, yet to get it! but definitely going to now tbh.
I’ve also not managed to get to the S2B yet as I stepped away from Britain.
it’s ofc my favourite vehicles, Chieftains, challangers, jags, phantoms FGRs etc, bit biased for it. I still cannot bring myself to play it and enjoy it past around 10.7 purely due to how poorly the challangers are treated.
Oh I’ll be honest i completely forgot the tornado existed when I said that.
as i use the jag still at 13.0 xD
love it mate, to the point of using it at 12.7/ 13.0 xD
well Gr3 I can get, aim9Gs , and CCIP makes it decent the Hunter, no clue. The hunter Fg9 as well, no idea.
THe GR1 I don’t have so can’t / won’t comment.
Like the Hunter F6 is 9.7 with no CCIP. and the F58 squadron is 10.0 with 2 AGMs as well as rockets, counter measures AND an RWR
Aim-9Gs… maybe? But I feel A2A performance shouldnt really be relevant in GRB.
The thing is… Buc S2 has CCIP/CCRP and more bombs, and more & better flares, and AGM-12s at 9.3. So from a CAS perspective, the harriers are weaker. Especially the GR1 with no CMs or RWR. Hunter F6 isnt any stronger than the FGA9 at 9.3 already.
Its just… annoying
it shouldn’t be at all which is funny cause it’s why teh Su30MKK is 12.3.
It’s got 6 x kh29MTs, 2X PL12s as well as 2 R73s.
Meanwhile the NETZ at 12.3 has 4 pythons, 6 AGM65Bs and 2 GPS GBUs
Exact same BR but the Su30MKK is far more of a threat to the air around it. Yet it’s the same BR as the netz.
Then randomly you have the likes of the AMX A1A , the premium, has 6 x lizard GBUs which are average at best , and 2 pirhana missiles, 11.3???
the split in how the balance the GRB planes is beyond random.
Yeah true but has only aim9Bs no?
the FGA9 is 9.3? i thought it was 9.7 in GBR ?
Also yeah I 100 percent agree mate, it’s weird af how the harriers are so high and the hunter for having piss poor ground strike ability.
Yeah, but why you would ever run them over the LCM pods is beyond me.
Nope. 9.3 in GRB.
1 Like
It’s like I can see the future
I am utterly speechless that gaijin can claim it can’t penetrate even with the era removed, when an official document clearly says it can even through the era.
What more is required here? Why are we made to jump through so many hoops only for gaijin to pull out a technicality or straight not believe it when other systems can be done with “meh, we think it could be done, good enough.”
The army said it can do it in an official document. Why is this not good enough?
15 Likes
Gaijin thinking they know better than real life engineers, classic
2 Likes
As said here:
It is incredibly rare that documents are so blatantly clear in exactly what they mean. Usually we’re talking about a hypothetical opfor tank with guessed numbers, but the requirement of the ability to achieve SSK probability of something like 50% at 2km on “a T-80 with KE sensitive ERA” could not be any more obvious.
7 Likes
I note that we’ve not heard a peep from Smin since that exchange… probably trying to work out how big of a riot there will be when he has to effectively convey from the devs ‘We think is Clear Marketing Lie’ without it being weaponised as a meme until the thermal death of the universe…
…because it WILL BE.
4 Likes
What are you referring to by “specific locations”?
Given it states the penetration includes era, it can’t be the drivers port or anything.
Do the developers think it’s referring to the lower frontal plate as it makes no sense otherwise. It can’t be the drivers port as that isn’t covered by era. Do the developers believe that the report claiming a penetration of a t-80u including the era component wasn’t actually tested against the era component in order to “cheat”?
6 Likes