It got one nerf… the turret rotation… it still will minutely affect performance I’m sure. I can’t wait to see the APDS recalculation, but instead of doing something healthy for the game by correcting the over estimation of the Rarden (or fixing the underestimate for others) they listened to player opinion on how the fox is somehow balanced at 7.7
Honestly it’s been mad easy playing Brit tanks and getting nukes, honestly I’m annoyed I didn’t start that TT sooner.
cough cough Su-30SM? Because why allow the RU to have a competitive fighter in top tier right? :)
This is about the fox stay on topic
Yeah sure, bring the M103, T32E1, IS-6, IS-4, Maus, and the like with it.
You literally just said something off topic. Don’t by hypocritical now
This is not about the fox
Stay on topic or don’t ping me
You don’t like a comparison? If you don’t like the topic, you don’t have to respond to it.
But please, stay on topic.
Please talk about the fox
All my comments refer directly to the fox
This has nothing to do with the fox or cvrt
I rest my case.
Well, if you want to scroll way back up to the documents proving other auto cannons are:
Or the fact:
Which of these would you like to talk about? I’m all ears.
It performs exactly up to the spec of the source we have
Which is probably lowballing it
It’s accuracy is underperforming for certain
It was meant to be near bang on perfect at 1500m wasn’t it?
I have sources of there needs to be proof but IIRC
at 1000 meters it should land every round into that silly IR light on the left side of the T-64 basically a paper plate
The RARDENs accuracy was so remarkable the USA ran studies on it.
So then you agree other auto cannons are underpreforming before you reply to this, go check the previously posted links. The 2a72 (BTR80A) has higher chamber pressure, with a lighter projectile.
Meaning these two (both the same caliber, but the 2a72 is longer in length), should have very similar penetration.
But, as you can clearly tell in game, the BTR’s gun is far worse than the Rarden in penetration in close quarters. Again, these would share a far smaller gap than what is in game probably something closer to:
Rarden: 110 mm
2a72: 94 - 100 mm
Meant and is are two vastly different things, many vehicles meant X characteristic but got Z.
The IR light ≠ the size of a paper plate… it’s also not on the side…
1000 meters distance with what, a round every minute? I’d love to see these sources.
If this last part was true, it would’ve been purchased, likely reverse-engineered, then upgraded. The Bushmaster is quite popular inn’t?
I take it you’d be astounded to hear that manufacture quality, design of both cannon and round, etc would lead to a notable difference in performance.
None of that is even taken into consideration In game, otherwise British tanks like many others would be in a far far worse position.
Generally, Russian gunpowder is more explosive btw.
The documentation the devs can find will come from the efficacy of the design, and the average manufacture quality of the ammunition. That means even if it isn’t modeled that rounds have minute variance in their efficacy, a worse designed or manufactured round will generally have the devs finding worse figures for it. That means a less optimal cannon design for propellant burn will also lead to the devs finding adverse figures for it. There are myriad complexities that whilst not explicitly modeled in the game, influence the documented values and why something might or might not be worse. This means propellant type is not the be all and end all of “this round is more effective”. This is not even an entire list of why there might be a difference in the results between two different systems.
People have explained to you how there are differences in the actual designs of both round and cannon, and why that is notable. Carrying on about it just shows you’re unserious in actually developing an understanding.