it is suggest that the manlet has more armor, there was bug report from a guy that work directly in the manufacture proceed of one of the m1s turret, he show there are bolts and stuff after the first player of the composite remove(i think, i forgot its been a while)
2 Likes
ever play Squad? theres your real world experience. FPV drones raining down on tanks with impunity. even in warthunder i’va had people try to crash their UAV drones into my helicopter.
1 Like
for a “niche” game like War Thunder, it is unlikely to ever be mainstream. I mean, a COD veteran would still be a noob in this game. It doesn’t have that easy appeal of any of the big titles. I too want so much more from War Thunder, but without knowing their financial situation in any real detail everything they do just makes sense to me from a business standpoint. This is a long winded way of saying I don’t think that Gaijin is playing it super safe. It WOULD be risky to profit to higher more devs with the hope more better stuff than what we get now would meaningfully improve it’s current growth.
Okay. NOt really the point of the thread lol. But an interesting conversation.
1 Like
Been since 2012 since I’ve been on an Abrams. I’m pretty sure it has to do with mounting and dismounting the cannon. You have to have the ability to change barrels in the field. Definitely could be wrong about that.
2 Likes
nah its the inbuilt ejection seat in russian tanks, one hit and the crew bail out via ejection. Don’t believe the propaganda guys its totally just them being promoted to cosmonauts
Of all things, They could have done I did not expect such a Flagrant Nerf;
I guess they couldn’t allow for the Autoloader to be properly modeled without cost, the Monkey’s paw curls yet tighter.
As an aside shouldn’t the same (lack of) functionality also be reported for the T-xx Series of tanks to ensure fairness and avoid any sort of Bias accusations.
1 Like
I mean, it’s kind of encouraging that NATO stuff is so good they have to bend over backwards to make Russian/Chinese stuff even have a chance in this game.
You are right though. This change is so unrealistic it beggars belief.
1 Like
I’m afraid the bias accusations would be moot anyways because the new 2S19’s also have pretty enormous drive mechanisms:
1 Like
But that’s not an MBT is it?
1 Like
Why does the classification of a vehicle matter whatsoever?
The point stands that Gaijin is modelling massive drive mechanisms that includes parts of the basket for Russian vehicles this patch as well.
Now I happen to know you’re not okay with the HSTV-L turret basket model, but that’s also not an MBT either.
2 Likes
Because it’s not being rolled out universally, across all counterparts and so is unfairly going to be adversely impacting the performance of select vehicles. Especially considering how much more common the M1 / Leopard series is vs support options.
This is a false equivalency. The BR, use of the vehicle, and the overall damage model are very different.
And, to me, it’s not really about BIAS. It’s about how Gaijin is unfairly hamstringing the Abrams. The Abrams, in the game, needs DU hull armor. To not do it is a pernicious decision. I understand why they fake the hell out of the T-72/80/90. IRL those tanks are tremendously bad. All tanks with carousel autoloaders are deeply and fundamentally flawed. But to then to turn around and not give the Abrams DU hull armor is head scratching. It’s a gigantic weak spot, not present to that scale on any other MBT
1 Like
You can’t expect them to do so given the amount of work that would entail.
Regardless, this is an issue of incorrect components being counted as drive mechanisms, not the overall idea of implementing more detailed modules.
Plenty of tanks have/will have the same treatment.
Stop it with this victim complex that is characteristic of US players.
That would entail adding one of those 5 known vehicles to possess such a hull array, the problem with that is it could only be a M1A1 HA/HC.
My suggestion stays the same as it always has: M1A2 SEP v3. There you’ve both turret and hull armour upgrades.
That’s just your personal bias and can be dismissed as such.
This is pure and simple ignorance regarding what other nations have to deal with, alongside that typical victim complex I was talking about.
But please tell me more about how the M1’s hull armour is uniquely weak /s
I’m sure there aren’t any British/Chinese/French/Israeli/Japanese/Italian players that would disagree whatsoever.
2 Likes
Looking at the win rates for the USA. They have a right.
As I have explained in this post NUMEROUS times. That is untrue.
Uh no. That’s the historical record.
Huh. Clearly significantly worse than the LEO II and the T-series. Because you are doing this on a flat plane and the height differences are crucial.
But they already overhauled The T-XX series, when they added the autoloader model; why wasn’t the Turret Basket included at that point, if this was intended to be a universally introduced mechanic?
They did not implement any of the existing the existing reports on the issue with this revision even though they are how old?
Considering He’s a SME on this I don’t think that Bias really comes into it.
T-80UD to 9.7 when?
T-72AV, 2S38, T-80B, T-90A, etc. buffs when? 3BM-46 APFSDS for these MBT’s when?
‘‘They have a right.’’
Clearly it couldn’t be the player’s fault.
Fine, present evidence that supports the existing in-game M1’s having DU hull armour.
The historical record is being written as we speak, and the M1A1 SA’s ain’t doing so hot either.
But clearly that could only be for one reason, right? It must be purely because the M1A1 SA’s are bad tanks.
I’m sure that you’ll agree that none of the surrounding circumstances play any role whatsoever that result in these large percentages of M1A1’s being knock out.
2 Likes
It’s only vehicle’s fault when US is in question, players are definitely not “guilty”:
4 Likes
Before we start going off topic again
That’s entire issue here. If they are not willing to implement detailed modules for top tier vehicles at the same time, then don’t implement it.
This is undeniably a massive nerf to those tanks deserving or not. If all top tier mbts (or at the very least, the big three) got them, very little would be complaining.
This is a matter of preferential treatment and their reasoning behind it
1 Like
All of this would be entirely fine if they just decoupled the basket from counting as a drive mechanism.
That’s literally all they have to do.
I don’t see this staying the way it currently is, but the trunnion is currently absorbing any and all spalling and only the M1’s have this modelled.
Again, low chance of this going unchecked, but if it does, the M1’s will by far be the most survivable hull-down tanks in the entire game.
How many Kh-38’s (with a thermal Targeting pod) can the new Su-30SM carry again? Yet Gaijin wouldn’t give the Brimstone F&F forget capabilities because it was unbalanced.
Developer comment
We feel weapons that can be used outside of the direct line of sight of the target without needing any preliminary reconnaissance or direct user targeting are not currently workable for the game. Weapons such as Brimstone, AGM-114L cause a particular problem and similarly to other ATGMs that have lock after launch modes like the Spike and AJ.168 will not have such abilities in the game.
These weapon types present several issues all at once, they require no challenge to use effectively and have no counterplay options for those being attacked. The attacker can operate outside of the range of any anti-air system in the game, Brimstone is also immune to smoke, so this won’t help either.
ARH modes for air-to-ground weapons won’t be workable until natural and artificial interference to these guidance systems can be implemented, as there are no electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare systems in the game. Adding these weapons now would allow them to operate perfectly without any counter, which we don’t want to do. Additionally, at closer combat ranges ATGMs with ARH cannot distinguish between allied and enemy targets, and this would lead to a large amount of accidental teamkills as well.
2 Likes