That the thing, I worked hard to get both files under the 4mb limit, and it said they were 100% uploaded.
EDIT: it looked like this
DOUBLE EDIT: it is now fixed
Ah. The Fox IS INCORRECTLY modeled.
They wanted this meaner Fox instead Fox Armoured Car
The one in game should be swapped with that one. All players will be happy then.
Because evidence turns up that means that the characteristics/parameters that determine what penetration a round has changes… they don’t magically make it up. They use the Lanz Odermatt formula for large calibre shells, and iirc use a variation on this for smaller calibre rounds.
Incorrect. Even at point blank range, the Fox will struggle to front-pen an M48.
You are partially correct in your assessment of the side armour, though above 1000m the side of the turret starts to become difficult to be penetrated.
However, it gets interesting - the RARDEN APDS actually performs worse at 1000m, as the Fox only penetrates 69mm of RHA, whereas the BTR using APDS can penetrate 75mm.
The XM800 can penetrate the side hull, but can only do this at point blank.
If you’re firing APDS you should’ve gone through, so long as you didn’t fire at that front bit of the turret
Well hang on, you said side armour. You never said something about angles. Even then, the fox at a 30 degree angle at 1000m has 63mm of pen and under the same conditions the BTR has 69mm.
I mean you can keep moving the goalposts and all but it just stops being productive.
2 Likes
From experience I can second this.
As for the side armor, its not as reliable as the protection analysis makes it look. M48s give me a real hard time. Volumetric makes the side more survivable and often even if I pen it doesnt do much.
I imagine the roadwheels/guide wheels (whatever the heck they’re called, I’m writing at midnight and my brain function went out the window) screw your shots. I usually manage fine but that’s normally because i’m firing at point blank range where i can fire into the turret anyway.
I’ve had turret shots pen but not take out the gunner or the 50cal, also if the turret is rotating volumetric makes it a lot harder to pen.
I must admit the only time I’ve found it to be an issue. If anything, the RARDEN would appear to be underperforming, since the pen drops off much faster than any other autocannon ammunition of a similar calibre. iirc Rulan did a bit of digging on this some time ago, can’t remember what he found.
Also, fun fact, the only reason the BTR APDS isn’t worse is because of the generalised formula that I mentioned earlier that’s used for Autocannon/Low Calibre rounds:
30mm 3UBR8 APDS round overperforming // Gaijin.net // Issues
Sir that is a Canadian WW2 armoured car that next to no one had heard about in the WT community until I found it. Heck most of the major members of those interested in the UK tree learnt it through me a few days/weeks ago.
In game is the highly requested FV721 a domestic light tank of the UK something they have been wanting for years.
Besides unless the CAN Fox was in the US tree it would also get a “fox is overpowered thread”. Because “minor Nations” aren’t allowed anything good.
(I’m assuming your comment was sarcastic)
3 Likes
Must have fox (or fox-like) in every slot on my line-up. So its another variant to go alongside the variant with Milans and the Ferrets
3 Likes
All Canadian and Australian vehicles should be in the UK Tree.
We should have the Canadian Leo, and the Aussie Abrams. The fact that we got the Aussie Aardvark Jet proves my point.
On that note, the M22 should also be a UK vehicle. The US made it but only the UK used it in Combat.
3 Likes
There are a few that would be nice for completing line-ups. But Id prefer they focused on the unique stuff from those nations than the C&Ps at the moment. Like the LAV III would make a good high tier IFV for us which i think would be of more use than a premium leopard or something (for now)
LAV would be nice but if we had the Leo and the Abrams we’d have all of the big name MBTs except the Leclerc. (no one cares about Chinese trash)
Yeah… But we have too many MBTs at the moment, short of a production Chally 3. Id prefer they focused on things like IFVs, light tanks and SPAAs for the foreseeable future
Personally I’d prefer to get Canada and ANZACs trees or a combined Canada & ANZAC tree but after all that to the UK is better than the other options.
2 Likes
It’s not like the US or Germany need those vehicles.
2 Likes
Here’s the thing: I get why, but I fundamentally disagree. I’m a bit of a purist. I’d much rather us get some obscure (to most people) prototype MBT than a Aussie Abrams for instance. I understand why people want an Aussie Abrams in the Brit Tree, I just don’t agree. If it’s unique (in the sense it’s not just another country’s (commonwealth!) version of a particular vehicle) then by all means add it. But I don’t want Britain to become a mangled collection of T-90s, Leopard 2s, Abrams, etc etc since that’s not what the British tree encompasses.
What I really want is some consistency. By putting the Aussie Abrams in the US tree, but the Aussie Aardvark in the UK tree, Gaijin is basically saying fuck consistency, we’ll just arbitrarily distribute these commonwealth vehicles wherever we want.
We already have the Indian T-90, so we might as well get to complete the collection. Neither the Leo nor the Abrams in question are top tier vehicles anymore, but having the variety would be nice compensation for suffering through the UK tree and it would suit the British Museum spirit of collecting stuff from across the world.
2 Likes
I don’t get it. We’ve been asking for CVR(T)s for years. What more is there that we can do to make that point?
What, are we gonna have to ship a Scorpion out to their offices and drive it through their front door?
4 Likes
or a Scimitar
and we shouldnt have to view it as an either or scenario. Rightfully we should have both a collection of MBTs and more light tanks/SPAAs