shame, Though tbf I’d still be using my sim sights.
T-80U-E1 also has got a camo net update.
Still waiting for Challengers camo nets. Its been a sad day for Challengers.
4 Likes
welll… i know that u dont wanna hear it, but theoreticaly it has a camo net
Should have clarified, a higher quality camo net.
All camo nets since the premium 2A4 have been nice looking. Challenger’s camo net still looking like papier mâché.
2 Likes
press F for ASPRO-HMT
5 Likes
Thats what i dont fucking get, they show pictures of singles blocks being able to stop 25mm apfsds and then in game require up to 3 to stop the round… Somehow basic they get even the most basic concepts wrong…
3 Likes
COUGH Cheiftain turrets having armor holes to this day, AND the T29/T34/T30 all having the wrong mantlets. COUGH
7 Likes
T29/T34/T30 all having the wrong mantlets
Wait hold up, excuse my ignorance, but I thought that the current 8 inches CHA + 1 inch spall shield for most of the mantlet was correct? At least based on some of the internet sources I’ve read, especially Tanks Encyclopedia, though Tanks Encyclopedia’s numbers also somewhat contradict the document right underneath it (9 inch basis vs 8 inch basis). Am very confused, though it would be typical of Gaijin to screw up something like this anyways. Sorry for sidetracking.
The Current Mantlet armor is too thin, The 8 inch/203mm plate is from earlier drawings of the tanks before they knew the power of the German Long 88 guns, it should be more around 279mm thick, Since the actual built prototypes used that thickness.
1 Like
Oh okay, makes sense (it looks like Gaijin used the August 1945 AFV Technical Situation Report Appendix C that Tanks Encyclopedia also used, which was quite a bit before the prototypes were finished). Is there a bug report ongoing for this issue?
Not that i know of.
I did just find T29/T30/T34 wrong spall shield thickness. // Gaijin.net // Issues saying that the spall shields should be 25 mm instead of 20 mm, and that the 279 mm thickness is only for the edges, which is a bit weird since the edges go up to 302 mm in game, so I’m just more confused now lol. Seems like there’s a lot of vagueness on which values are maximums vs minimums across most sources so far.
From what i understand Gaijin was never granted access to the Prototypes by the US army, While the World of Tank dev’s were, So they were able to do Scans of the armor and such to determine its proper thickness, hence why in that game its 279mm thick.
1 Like
Using WOT data, how bold. Although i will say WOT has amazing access to alot of tanks so its not actually a bad shout to take data from them, could we not ask them to provided sources or data for us for some ww2 and early cold war tanks?
1 Like
Back in the day WOT was like the best possible source for Armor stats on tanks, Recently in the past couple years they have been doing absolute horrid ahistorical armor buffs to ALOT of tank’s, But back in like 2013-15 they were a GREAT source.
1 Like
Yeah, its a shame really as i used to have alot of fun playing it back in the day. Coming back from school to play wot on my laptop which really shouldnt be running anything more than scrabble lol.
2 Likes
a cool video I found
Talking about sights and probably digging up a very old corpse, at the beginning of this year there was the discussion about the C2 receiving MP Catherine TI’s, giving the C2’s 3rd gen thermals. Did this report ever go anywhere?
i dont think that was reported
Hmmm if that’s the case I’ll have a crack at it. Can’t wait to be told no for absolutely no reason.
In other news I finally remembered to record and get a very well trained soviet boyo doing the right thing on the wrong tank.
10 Likes