Sadly its not the case. Since L27s current performance cant do that against T-80U.
As mentioned, even with the ERA stripped off.
1 Like
Fine. It would appear that the devs have made their minds up. I appreciate the response and the somewhat careful balancing act you are having to do.
2 Likes
current performance in game or in real life? because the sources you (“you” being gaijin) were provided says otherwise and ingame the T80U armour is known to be overperforming and L27A1 is known to be underperforming
6 Likes
Primary real world documentation saying it can should trump “in game it can’t” and things should be adjusted accordingly.
Either L27a1 is underperforming or the T80u armour is over performing. This document proves one of these to be the case.
3 Likes
literally ~10mm away from penetrating
good thing it’s only a suggestion then Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
Well, at least we know that realism and common sense aren’t important in the game.Avoid a few arguments on the forum haha.
1 Like
Having used both a lot, I can tell you the merkava ammo doesn’t get hit and blow up, CR2 they’ll fire clean through the breach and nuke the crew most times.
also the CR2 turret once you start to turn it will take more shots through it, as there are so many tanks sliding around hurling DM53 or similar rounds.
to hit the ammo on the merkava in the turret is far harder than to disable a CR2 through the turret.
the CR2 as my point still stands sa well has
- worse reload over all
- far worse round.
- about the same optics bar the 2E.
- no anti air round
- only BN has LWS and IRST when every mk4 has it, even mk3
- CR2 BN has better APS.
That’s about it man.
Also how is the merkava turret objectively weaker at oblique angles, if you can shoot the side of the CR2 turret it will almost always get through it, not talking at a slight angle, where as the merkava due to the angling and blank space is far less likely to do anything.
Though conceding the turret armour point, for the sake of it, the mk4 is still objectively a better vehicle than CR2. Which infuiriates me-
- same with how they’ve completely ignored trunion reports.
- charm 3 reports (which btw they did provide adequate sources gaijin just said no), they’ve used brochures to buff russian tanks which are quite clearly marketing lies. So why not extend the courtesy to accept a report from the British Army.
- they’re adding a turret basket which IRL it doesn’t have one, it has platform but that platform wouldn’t stop turret traverse as been proven.
VS statements provided by the british army xD
6 Likes
It can in real life, where’s your source to argue otherwise?
8 Likes
to be fair L27A1 is incorrect in-game, with a report on correct mass and dimensions being accepted over two years ago. i find it a bit rich for the devs to talk about “known performance” when they haven’t implemented the correct known mass and dimensions, and then use the incorrect implementation of the round in their in-game testing to justify not giving it anti-ERA performance
they’re also assuming that they have the protection of the T-80U (and K5) perfectly correct, if an in-game comparison is being treated preferentially over real world documentation
10 Likes
I mean its just ridiculous, reading that sentence alone man.
What happened with only needing 2 secondary sources when it comes to these sort of classified vehicles, how do the developers know what is and what is not true about the Pacific vehicles. Do they have access to classified information that us players do not have access to ??
What the developers should be doing is sticking to their guns only needing at minimum two secondary sources on Pacific issues with the vehicle and they should stick to that if it makes a vehicle more overpowered that’s the whole reason behind battle ratings, limited ammunition fire rates the list goes on. The developers need to massively overhaul the bug reporting system it is an absolute nightmare to pass a simple bug report on with these vague answers for denying it it is totally unacceptable and it is absolutely frustrating to the entire player base who are dedicating their time to vehicles they love and have passion for just for some moderators who know absolutely nothing about those vehicles and issues and denying them with very scripted AI responses.
You need to standardise the bug reporting system pacifically when it comes to classified vehicles and aircraft etc use need to stick to your guns two secondary sources as long as you have two sectional sources it is passed to the developers and it is changed it is fixed if new sources come out the contradicts it will then it can be debated among the community. But until then we can only go off the current information that we players have access to which is books unclassified documents, videos, pictures etc so if we have at least two secondary sources claiming L27A1 is capable and defeating ERA that gets past the developers and the developers implement that no questions asked end off. That is the way it should be no questions unless there’s plenty of unclassified information from documents books etc that contract within we can have are debate about that on the challenger 2 thread isn’t that the whole point of threads.
4 Likes
where on earth does gaijin find these sources?
7 Likes
yeah, we just need clarity with the devs
Something sorely lacking for nothing good
10 Likes
insert that one top gear clip here
i would appreciate if they cited their sources for things, and showed where its estimation/speculation.
especially with how they can be quite pushy to get the whole document a bug reporter used, even if the individual spent a lot of money on it. Maybe gaijin should have GE bounties for that stuff
2 Likes
24 Likes
that is gold
1 Like
Are we sure the T80U is correct? t64A was ~50mm too much and that’s a simple type of composite
This one has textolite (compressed fabric) worth as much as at least concrete and possibly some armour steel
Oh bugger - you just KNOW they’re gonna nerf it (even more) now.
1 Like
they are already doing fake nerfs with a turret basket, on a turntable floor based MBT…
6 Likes