you know when they got the eurofighter docs they immediately change the most of the thing, its still has missing stuff but thats just tell you how they are
Things like HSTVL/RDFLT XM885 Apfsds round they stated they need exact military document(you can visit Spookston video on YT)
they refuse to buff it historically
sekret documents are happily accept internally
(might get flag for this tbh)
They have to have standards. But applying thembin this case is asking for something that doesnt exist.
Which is stupid.
2 Likes
they have standard
double standard
and they also have something call the monkey paw effect that has been running for basically since the game came out
Indeed they are Players been given lot of documents throughout years yet nothing changes much
Which bring me the question
does they really care about historical like they really love to present themselves?
or they just lied to customers which is us players
as for me seem like they didn’t care about it historical or balanced
DM53 for example many sources said it had anti era yet still not in the game but turret basket? now?
Other case is Leclerc long ago that they remove CITV from it due to one document state that they don’t have it yet French community gave the source that they can use historical round that better than OFL 120F1 and did they get it? No
Why they do all this? No idea laziness? incompetent? Nobody knows
2 Likes
So how trustworthy can Jake collins armor page, bob armor page and tank net be? all three citing the 120mm M-829A3 between 930mm 960mm and 970mm respectively at 1km and 2-2km?
edit: Don’t take it wrong, it would be absolutely unbalanced and busted if the actual values were added
Not really the point.
The point is that without classified documents nobody really knows. Therefore Gaijin can do whatever they want. When they claim “Historical documents” They are blowing sunshine.
6 Likes
It’s basically a concept of moving the goalposts when talking about historical documentation
Welp… So much for the spall absorbing trunnion, it’s not even there.
In all seriousness, yeah this is just a massive nerf. They couldn’t even bother fixing the hydraulic pump placement
It really does seem like reports classed as “suggestions” are actively used to assist with vehicle balancing.
Just look at what they’ve done to the F-14s.
The report is barely two months old, and could have been worked around for the -14B (at least) by replacing in kind the basic AIM-54C with the “-54C(ECCM/Sealed)”
And yet the following report is nearing 2 years old at this point, and yet somehow still remains to be implemented. Which of course lead to the F-14B missing out on a buff that could have improved the radar’s performance.
[DEV]The F-14B should be impacted by this change to IRST/EOTS
Presently the F-14B doesn’t use its EO tracker as part of its STT automation. As such isn’t subject to the fix requested.
The fix for the aircraft mentioned in this report is only to resolve the automation rapidly changing between radar and IR/EO while in STT. It isn’t to grant full launch capabilities in those modes and doesn’t allow for it when manually switching to IR/EO modes.
It’s also partially why I try to avoid reporting direct Nerfs where possible, since often Gaijin doesn’t take nuance into account when implementing them.
6 Likes
how is the abrams turret basket model
u got any protection analysis show, also does it spall or catch it(im not on my pc)
I’m not really sure. I don’t think it’s absorbing shrapnel and if it is, it’s being outweighed by the amount of shrapnel being generated.
The thing is that side shot center of mass is usually a one shot kill even before the the turret basket was added. In my opinion, all this does is increase the area in which you have the possibility of getting a one shot kill.
I can’t give a definitive answer, I should’ve done tests pre-patch
6 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
In Leopard models the turret gets now jammed with virtually every hit. This turret basket always gets hit and also doesn’t protect, spall goes through.
3 Likes
Still no word on the bumped bug reports either
Very low confidence. Especially if it claims such a high penetration figure without any kind of basis. Instead I recommend the following article.
2 Likes
idk how much id trust that source, it literally says there isnt a cutaway view of m829a3 while one of the first images claims to be one.
while also ignoring how the cutaway of m829a3 clearly shows a significant length increase over m829a2
He says there isn´t a cutaway showing where the penetrator ends and where the breakaway tip begins. From the most important source -the patent- what the author deducts is that said tip is 100-120mm long, which is just enough for the penetrator to be just as long as previous M829A2 (but thicker).
But you are probably missing the most important point: it penetrates between 0.5-10 percent more into steel than if it hadn´t the penetrator and up to 20 percent vs targets equipped with heavy ERA (K5 and similar).
In other words, if by formula we get that M829A3 penetrates 710mm at 60º, then you have to increase it by 10 percent, that is 780mm vs tanks that don´t have ERA and up to 850mm against those which do.
1 Like
Well for Tiger, destroying the floor IS destroying the traverse cause that’s where the traverse mechanism is transferred to the turret.