Yeaa 'bout that, as David already mentioned; L-O is used, but Gaijin would disregard it either way due to methodologies used (steel equivalent vs semi-infinite steel etc - the game is coded for the latter, not the former).
Ye, i’m aware of that. After all I championed that back on the old forum following Conraire’s findings and bug reports, since at the time we lacked a proper explanation for their erronous overperformance, which is when I figured out that Gaijin just took 1 measuring methodology, and applied it to everything, which was later confirmed via calculations that a former forum user, Laurelix, would post on the forums.
Laurelix is completely wrong with their calculations. One of them is right and that was for t64a, where he took the efficiency of textolite in 1 T64A secondary source and applied its effectiveness across every other array, which is erroneous.
The only other thing hes right about is that most of the t series tanks are overperforming.
Id be happy to explain why. and as i mentioned earlier i wrote a 50 page paper im still editing for submission.
With countless primary and secondary sources for evaluation.
I can calculate them with absolutely 100% exactness and certainty, with values staying consistent across the multiple sources I provide.
3 Likes
Right, and by the sounds of it. Once again, Britain is left to suffer. There must be a solution. Because we cant have a repeat of Gaijin “solution” for Britain air. Which was to leave us at 11.3 and advance most other nations onto 12.3. If gaijin is unwilling to model the game accurately enough to create a level playing field. Then they need to start applying some corrective adjustment. Probably doesnt need much, 5-10% increase in pen would probably be plenty. Add in the host of other bug reports that need fixing and adjusting some of the areas that Gaijin 100% directly control for “balancing reasons” like reload speeds and the CR2 wouldnt be entirely DOA.
You’ve kinda missed the point there. It’s not that he was wrong or right, it’s that his calculations still showed that they are overperforming, which confirmed both Conraire’s reports, and my theory as to why they’re overperforming.
To be fair, right now it’s modelled accurately for RHA performance ignoring missing features like anti-ERA, L-O allows us to calculate a KEP’s performance against a semi-infinite block of steel with minimal error as long as the input values are more or less accurate (the deviation is usually less than 4%). If Gaijin was to model APFSDS per their RHAe performance, only 2 APFSDS could be modelled that way, L27A1 and DM53, because know their RHAe requirements, but not for everything else - so realistically speaking, this is it.
I’m all for modelling important features, but making exceptions for just 2 KEP is wrong imo. This is also why i’m all for @Guardians6521 report on overperforming T-series armour, since they are curently an exception.
2 Likes
Right. Both shells are missing an important and critical feature. As a stop gap to that. applying a small buff to Pen might be a reasonable solution. (should be clearly communicated that way) This is what is so crazy about this. The CR2 shouldnt be struggling at all. In fact it probably should be one of the best long range tanks in the game. Able to provide fairly consistant long range fire support and pen quite well vs tanks most nations struggle to fight. Combine with the fact it should be pretty damn resistant to things like AGMs (especially tanks like the TES ) and it may have a bit of a niche, but it would have something. At the moment you have to aim for the tiniest cracks in the armour and hope that the shell does something if it pens.
Im just getting repeats of what we are dealing with in air at the moment. Tornado Gr1 (and in fairness other IDS Tornados) is struggling like mad at the moment. Why? Because it has barely any CMs. Current count 56 cobmined. What should it have? 216 flares and 1360 chaff (56 flares and 1200 Chaff from 2x BOZ pods and 320 mixed CMs from 2x BOL (BOL is unique to the Gr1)) They need to model seperated CMs, but they just wont and we dont know why. This has left the Tornado struggling far more than it should and that is just 1 of about 6 or 7 “Missing game features” that is handicapping that aircraft unncessarily. The CR2 just feels the same, a great tank hobbled excessively at every single turn (and quite literally its turning speed) by “missing game mechanics/features”
But the best we can hope for is that the Soviet tanks get nerfs (but that is unlikely)
I´m all for those changes as well.
1 Like
UK Tornados got PGM which no other Tornado got.
and? Im expecting them to add them to the other Tornados eventually, or an equivalent at least. Im still eternally surprised that they added them at all (but won’t add the 500lb paveways…)
But doesnt really change the fact that A)they are worthless outside of GRB B) that all the Tornados lack 95+% of their CMs
UK favouritism 8)
They are pretty worthless in GRB as well tbh. I wouldn’t spawn it unless I couldn’t spawn anything else. Even then I think I prefer the Su-22
1 Like
They’d be useful for SEAD in GRB if the TIALD pod allowed for lock on at greater ranges (currently max is 13-14km) the PGMs (when dropped from height) should easily be able to hit a target out to about 20kms. But limited to about 13kms, you are better off taking GBUs and lofting/dropping from height as they cost less SP. (probably also about time we got an upgrade as well, TIALD 500 over the 400 we have currently would probably be enough)
It’s such a shame, like a lot of British Vehicles, including the CR2s. Its an iconic and highly capable vehicle, that is handicapped quite a bit in WT because “reasons”. The Tornado Gr1s Primary weapon for taking out tanks IRL, was cluster bombs. A weapon system not modelled yet. (maybe ever) just getting tired that everytime there is a missing feature, weapon type, etc. It always seem to be Britain that draws the short straw…
but Gaijin will change LITENING II to2 gen thermal in the future
TIALD is just a suggestion report right there
2 Likes
Well then drop the BR of Chally and Leclercs until they could receive their proper irl stats
6 Likes
played a few matches today, i died to this shot 8 times oneshot every time(no ammo detonation just killed the whole turret crew). i cant even find a shot like this on any other tank.
8 Likes
Your density is to low and so is the hardness number
1 Like
Yea, that spot, Loader sight, gunner sight, mantlet, turret ring under the mantlet. All this makes the only viable playstyle (hulldown) a pain to do.
1 Like
DM53 doesn’t have a frustrum (so that 40mm is going away) either way.
So, assuming @CptOguzz values are 100% correct, it would look more like this;
You got the dimensions wrong. The penetrator is a lot shorter, 685x23mm.
1 Like