If reload was actually important, Type 10 and Leclerc would be among the top 3 vehicles in the game + No need to make things up, you can just admit the Chinese MBTs are doing just fine
The Leclerc is one of my most favourite top tier vehicles BECAUSE of the reload and I never said China was underperforming but it felt slightly handicapped alongside France.
What does the AMX-32 have to do with this
France also has goofy vehicles is what my point was, 120mm gun alongside thermals and a undestroyable blowout panel isn’t fun to fight against (not to mention the 20mm controlled by the gunner).
Chinese tanks are mid, better than Russians IMO which are some of the weakest thanks to the poor mobility, gun handling, and easy 1 shot. But to keep things on Chinese MBT’s, they would be competitive if 1) they had their missing spall liners 2) the DTC10 had it’s real penetration values and wasn’t the 2nd weakest top tier shell 3) accurate model, for some reason Gaijin thinks they are Abrams XL sized when they are derivatives of the T-72 4) the VT-4A1 have it’s correct reload rate and reverse speed and 5) fix the damn fuel tank explosion BS. Now, are Chinese tanks the worst? No, they have good mobility which is VERY strong in this game since the devs think all maps should have massive hills. Are Chinese tanks weaker than the current top dogs? Yes, and it is noticeable. Other tanks have it worse, but that is not an excuse to neglect ones that need attention; neglecting any of the minor nation tanks (except Sweden, screw Sweden) only makes the inbalance of power worse.
Racism and an obviously incorrect way of protection analysis. The projectile originates from the camera point and not from an angle parallel to the ground. Therefore, correct depiction of the armour is only possible with the camera placed at the point on a horizontal line with the section of armour that is referenced. Therefore, for the lower frontal plate, the correct camera point is close to the ground.
Also, your entire point about “hiding the LFP” is wrong, as you missed the driver’s port, which leads to a one-shot. You also refused to highlight the entire breach area, as well as the turret ring, both of which are highlighted in green, displaying your ignorance. Whether the point of view is from above or below, the weak spots are still there; in fact, the higher point of view results in more penetrable area, which is clearly not portrayed by your biased diagram.
You come into this thread only to scream bias; you, with a victim mentality, insist the tanks of enemies of Western countries are too powerful in-game. You say people opposing your views are “nationalists” yet you yourself are overwhelmingly, and delusionally, so.
Type 99’s ammo penetrates correctly.
UFP of Leclerc is a bug where the internal plate isn’t calculated.
Merkava and Arete require evidence.
Irrelevant, as it can fire the round. NATO standards should be used and RH-120 guns should share more ammo in WT.
What my 2A5 does that Arietes don’t: Armor.
They still can shoot first and not be seen, they can still maneuver before getting shot at, and they can still maneuver to avoid hits… 3 of the 5 onion layers.
Ariete’s armor is bad, everyone in the world will agree there.
It’s like comparing Leopard 1A5 to T-72A and claiming the 1A5 should be 8.7.
This is just wrong. It only applies for when you are fairly close to the MBT you’re fighting. Further distances reduces the need to aim your barrel down towards the center of the MBT.
All 3 examples in that image are wrong.
1 and 2- No gun is mounted that high.
3- No gun is mounted that low.
You AT MOST put your gun between the tip of the barrel and the roof of the hull.
You do not go below the roof of the hull, and you don’t go above the breech of the gun [this one needs to be stated as T-72’s gun is angled down by 1 degree in its resting position].
Okay, let’s do some maths.
Height of Abrams tank is around 2.44m, according to Wikipedia (not a great source but will do). http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/tracked/abrams.html (The secondary source)
We assume that the weak spot we’re trying to shoot is the turret ring, which we assume that it is at half the height of the entire tank. Let’s also assume that we are in an Abrams and the breech is at 3/4th of the height of the tank.
Let’s say we’re shooting at 10 meters:
Using simple trigonometry, tan(θ) = (Opposite / Adjacent), since it’s a right-angled triangle,
angle of incidence to the normal of the turret ring would be tan^-1(0.61m/10m) = 3.49 degrees.
This means that you have to aim the camera 3.49 degrees above the normal of the hypothetical flat plate of the actual armour plate.
Unfortunately, Gaijin have not implemented this in the protection analysis; however, you can instead calculate the downwards angle, and use the construction angle to find necessary angle.
You can also just turn off taking into account the ‘vertical angle’ of the camera.
If we shoot the turret ring from 500m,
The angle of incidence would be tan^-1(0.61m/500m) = 0.0699 degrees ≈ 0.07 degrees, like the original poster stated.
The reason why his diagrams look wrong is because they are wrong. These are just not to scale. The third diagram doesn’t show where the breech is, but where the round would act about.
If you still do not believe this is true, I would like you to explain why.
What the maths is saying is that the camera should be 0 degrees to the point at where you’re trying to shoot.
And that the angle of incidence is somewhat inversely proportional to the range.
I think your post concerns allegations of general corruption, as opposed to specific corruption relating to weapons development and procurement, which is what I was assuming you were talking about.
Indeed.
Back on topic.
I think it’s well known that the Chinese tree has been maligned by a viciously anti-Chinese (now removed) member of staff(?) and now needs to be healed.
First could be historical reload rates for the autoloaders, or implementing fixes from the legion of bug reports.
ZSL-92 is (leaked) on the way too! Would be nice to see those things.
The Chinese MBTs aren’t fine, as Gaijin has already acknowledged in the bug reports submitted. They have many issues with them that entirely misrepresent these vehicles in the game. Even if their stats are good, their models are outright wrong, and they’re missing many features that they should have… not to mention the insane rate of fuel tank explosions, which feel even higher than soviet tanks.
That aside, the Ariete, Leclerc and Challenger 2 still do need improvements and I do think Gaijin should prioritise them, especially the Ariete since it’s the worst performing of the bunch. The Ariete could become infinitely better with a simple stat change for the WAR kit - if its kinetic modifier was changed from 0.2 to 1.5 (there is another thread that discusses why this should be done… I won’t go into it), the WAR kit would be enough to make the ariete’s turret actually able to take top tier rounds, and thus would make it actually competitive to play… even moreso if they added it for the AMV as well.
I’d rather have a better round on the Leclerc, currently it has the worst top tier round, and it’s armor can be one shot by 3BM60 regardless of that UFP “loophole”
Only the VT-4A1 really needs a better top round - the ZTZ99A and WZ1001 are completely fine. It’s not hard to make well placed shots with them since their gun handling is really good and they have third-generation thermals. What the Chinese vehicles really need is for their models to be fixed, and hopefully also the counter-laser APS for the ZTZ99A.
