Will the armour rework remove this hole? Literally unplayable XD
Welp time to grind Sweden or Russia instead, t’was a waste of a good few hundred hours.
Props to y’all who spent the time trying, did a small amount but yeah overarching issues of it being the worst MBT in the game ain’t gonna get fixed unfortunately.
y’all think sweden will still be meta in top tier in a year and a half?
2 Likes
Its bad but its not the worst in the game
Yeh it could be the ariete… heheh
forgot latest chally has dm53 now, which takes away a major part of what made the Ariente better, still, the speed and turning is just more meta.
Look I think it’s certainly not great but look at what everyone else got.
We’re being told the tank is going to be remodelled, the turret cheeks improved, spall liners for every angle, the mantlet reworked, etc
The only downsides are the ASPRO-HMT is still disputed and the ERA on TES/OES is not functionally suitable for its place at top tier.
and
The backing plate for the ERA is no longer composite (it never was, and this change while damaging to TES’ side protection is accurate). Now, they’re saying it’ll be aluminium, but it’s actually steel and a bug report submitted to support that fact.
Win some you lose some.
The big one too, is that the ammunition positions are being reworked, meaning you wont die to having HESH in your drivers seat.
The tank is getting mobility changes too which is great to see.
Frankly, look at what Abrams got: Nothing.
Look at Leopard with D-Tech: Nothing.
Look at Ariete and the other forgotten tanks: nothing.
We got a really decent outcome which can be slowly worked into being better.
4 Likes
The Ariente is still worse just look at the penatration heat map
Just to very breifly catch everyone up here - i’ve been in discussions with Smin regarding the current implementation of the TES’ Applique armor bricks meeting STANAG 5.
They do not.
When firing at a brick using Dardos 25mm APFSDS at 30 degrees angle of attack, you get full penetration of the brick: Failure to meet STANAG 5 standards.
Smin told me the developers interpretation of STANAG 4569s wording is that the angle is from the vehicles heading. So 30⁰ ± off the heading line of the vehicle. This comes with its own crazy implications but lets run with it.
Same conditions. Same result.
They’ve based their STANAG rating off of their Protection Analysis indicator turning red and showing its not penetrable, but this counts the ENTIRE armor array, not the individual block.
Both times, regardless of interpretation, the brick fails STANAG 5 requirements.
Information forwarded to Smin.
13 Likes
To put it in a TL;DR: There’s no circumstance where the ERA in game successfully stops a 25mm autocannon round at 500m, 0 degrees elevation and 30± angle of heading OR angle of attack.
4 Likes
The thing is, we would need to prove that the plate is thiccer there. We can see the plate is split into 3 parts, and that the front part must be 40 due to front fenders, but if the 2 plates covering crew compartment are thiccer or no we do not know
1 Like
This I can still understand, the aluminum part is just BS
Would that qualify for a second source of non aluminum plates? Because aluminum is normally not considered armoured
This also speaks of a armoured board
Third party websites are not accepted as source.
So might the first one, the book be accepted that it’s not aluminum.
It is funny how we have to provide sources while the devs and technical moderators apparently don’t.
3 Likes
It’s secondary so would need another source saying the same thing.
We tech mods have the same requirements as players. There is no different rule set, all my reports either have a single or multiple primary sources or multiple secondary sources.
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, do you know anything about the aluminium source? I failed to find even a single mention of aluminium while at the backplate topic.
1 Like
We do have another source. So that would be enough. If the same applies to technical moderators then how can a method like pixel counting be used as a source when we know the side plates have various versions and thicknesses? I mean a picture that is chosen selectively can’t be considered a primary source when it’s shown on other pictures that different versions of the back plate exist
5 Likes
Protection of the mask from a 57mm projectile 2S38
distance 0m
Cheli mk2 (the lead is mainly from 230 to 400+, in that green zone 130mm)
Cheli 2 (in some places only 40-60mm, and the maximum is 260mm, but in most cases 234mm)
Gaijin knows better how much armor is in the challenger 2 mask)))))))
Also I find it a funny practice to first request more info but then lock the conversation so that no more info can be added
Also apperantly the “pixel counting” part was deleted after.
@Gunjob are technical moderators allowed to reject reports because they have a different personal understanding of the matter at hand? Because “This is a dust cover” and showing two photos where two different baseplates with varing thicknesses are shown without any sources or further elaboration really shouldn’t the requirement for rejecting a bug report.
6 Likes
I know it was already talked about but here i bring it once again
The sideplate is split into 4 sections, Driver, 2 crew compatrtment and engine
Pic with only p1 and p4 mounted
The measure was made based on the front part
But as can be seen, the front has a fender part that does not allow for mounting armor close to it
so it has a space there. It has been like that since early DL
Where they had to prepare a special frame so it will fit with the fender (labeled 1)
So we cant say for sure that the whole plate is 40, just like we cant say for sure it is over 40
The thing that would thorw some light on it is Holder that can be seen next to slat, looking like it is on 3rd drive wheel
Sadly the perspecive makes it hard to make out how much extended it is, as it looks like it is far over the slats, and that would not be possible.