Thats your statistics:
You have a stellar amout of 80 games with M322, not really a long time.
How you did that, considering you don’t have anything researched on the French tech three? Dev allows you to play the same stuff you have on live.
1 Like
Not really stat shaming as he isn’t saying your bad but that you never played top tier
Not sure where you saw me stat shaming, i just showed the facts, which is that you don’t have any experience with top tier bar one nation basically.
-
Explosive charges all around the hull. Technically, only the Abrams doesn’t suffer from this; however, Germany and Israel have developed LOVA propellants to minimize these risks
-
Lack of situational awareness equipment: CITV, LWS or APS.
-
Unprotected LFP that requires external attachments to correct it (the tank base armor is already overweight).
The Merkava Mk.4 is a design born from the same british Cold war philosophy of tanks and it does everything better.
And it not like he bought a premium or something as thier isn’t any
Stoage bins my guy and look what we are finally doing
I wonder what doing right now
Made to be hull down infantry support always had something added on the lower front plate
Oh man how many vehicles can I say this about, hah, no, that is not a argument my guy, people still hold the original M1’s success over it’s current state as if it needs to pay reperations for killing T-64As.
No the Mig-27 was and still is a exceptionally capable CAS bird, and the new SU-25SM3 is even better.
If you guys had actual arguments to go off of you would have no need to resort to going after stats, if I had hid them you would have no basis for a argument to begin with.
No this happens time and time again when people run out of ammunition or rationales to go off of, its quite hilarious that WT players find stat shaming a effective tool so often in such discussions.
AKA “You cant say anything because you have not passed the arbitrary level of we think you have played enough”
No its not
It mid
And i think the lack of thermals at its br makes it useless
if you want we can keep arguing, however i do not see on what you’re basing off your words since you have 0 experience on the matter.
Im not shaming you by any means? Can you hsow me stat-shaming you?
The line is playing what your moaning about maybe
“Don’t worry, guys. Starting from 2027 and onwards our MBTs will be on pair with those from the 2010s”
Peak British MoD Procurement
There’s, as far as I can see, two ways of interpreting this: either you genuinely think Gaijin’s interpretation of the Challenger 2 is perfect (fun fact, it isn’t) or you underestimate British hardware.
British Hardware would be designed to defeat whatever design was expected or was known to be around at the time, so, given the Armour (we are talking about the base Chally 2 here, not any of the upgrades, like 2F, TES, etc) had its armour tested in 1994. Russian ammunition was, around the time, a mix of 3BM42 and 3BM46. Challenger 2 would’ve been designed to defeat such rounds.
There are also documents used in bug reports at the minute that state that the frontal armour array (the turret) would have to defeat at least 500mm penetration by KE rounds, and given how advanced Western Composites were it is reasonable to assume it would stand a very good chance against any CE rounds used by Warsaw Pact. Currently the turret in places doesn’t even defeat L23A1 (which has around 390mm). - Challenger 2 - Mantlet protection too low (post rework) // Gaijin.net // Issues
Additional Armour packs have been sought to increase protection against tandem warhead ATGMs from the side, and so on and so forth. Note how very infrequently, if at all, in Challenger 2’s service history, has any NERA/ERA packs been added to the upper turret face or upper hull? Because it’s simply never needed to. The reason presumably that Challenger 3 is being designed is that a threat has been identified which is capable of penetrating the Challenger 2’s armour array.
I mean Gaijin’s charge stowage modelling on Chally 2 is appalling if that’s what you’re saying
Not to mention that they have their own contained stowage bins
I sure do wonder what Black Night, or any of the other Theatre Entry Standard models did… oh wait
Also the “Tea Table” is an ECM system. Anything that isn’t wire guided would get buggered by it
Interesting choice of wording
Considering the Chally was built around Anti Tank, I wouldn’t call that correction. But hey, you do you.
1 Like
^
Very little self awareness right here.
I can do you one better if you like, I don’t accept any of your arguments as you aren’t a old guard, get back to me when you’ve been playing the game since 2013.
Me playing 80 or 200 games in the MK3D wont change the actual stats of the ordinance present in game, it is what gaijin sets it to be and that is the reality of it.
Thats not stat-shaming, its just stating facts. Im not sure why you want to act like a victim while it is clear that you’re not being victimized or shamed, do you know the difference betwen shaming and stating a fact?
I think everyone here is seeing you’re trying to play the victim card here just because you cannot substain an argument.
You’re right, however with 80 games i do suppose you’re almost out of the stockgrind with the Merkava, with M322 being a T3 shell, so as i said, you don’t have enough experience to give out a statement about a round, thats not stat shaming, thats just facts.
Good way to try to go around a losed argument.
Either way, where is your games with the Leclerc, ZTZ99A, Merkava MK4M? You have stated all those tanks have equivalent shell, so you must have tried them to saying something like that, right?
3 Likes
Nice try the M1A2 came into service 3 years before the first 2A5 rolled off the production line, and Gaijin had no wishes to actually give anyone a DM53 equivalent while the 2AX series was dominating everyone.
DOI is irrelevant in the context of War Thunder, you’re really quite clueless. You don’t have most of the vehicles you’re complaining & talking about, but you seem to be confidient in their complete & total dominance, that your own MBTs are just not on par with them - well that’s called a skill issue.
If by good you mean sit around 50 to 55% WR with everyone else, I did not know good was blatantly average or meh.
2019.11.22;
- US 70%
- Germany 55%
- USSR 40%
Then a few weeks later US mentality activates once again and their WRs tank… amazing, as far as I can see, most if not all of US’s WR issues stem from the players just being bad, couldn’t have imagined this being a case when it comes to one of the Big 3 tbh, I’m absolutely dumbfounded.
My dude called a steel man designed argument a strawman, top kek you flat out fell for my bait.
You never attempted a “steel man”, so just stop throwing out buzzwords when you don’t even know what their meaning is, thanks.
Penetrable frontal volume against 3BM42 is extremely similar between the SEPV2 and Azur
Reference threat being M829A2 because 3BM-42 isn’t a top tier KE by any measure, as such I do not see nor feel the need to use it in this comparison (especially because it isn’t Russian main round once we venture past 10.3, bringing it up only to paint M1 as “comparable” when it’s much better).
In the case of fuel tank explosions, write that issue down for any tank with non-external fuel tanks, this is not a uncommon fact.
Ah yea, the famous “well it happens to everyone so you’re not special” special pleading fallacy.
Oh no the F-16C exists and is a actual usable CAS bird for the US at top tier, I sure do hope for the past two years a group of other aircraft and equipment have not been decimating the playing field and still make me largely irrelevant.
Because an aircraft that was good 2 years ago is totallyyyyy relevant to today’s situation & competely invalidates that US today is much better in fixed wing CAS department; “b-b-but what about this aircraft dood!”.
Gina R/3 was good like 3 years ago, gonna bring that up as well to defend today’s US bad performance as well? :)
Wow, would you look at that, it turns out that F1 is a pretty average top tier round, yet pales when compared to the likes of DM53, Type 10, or A2, all of which produce far higher values.
-
Comparing them by their angled perforation really just shows that your knowledge of the game is lacking, as it’s a statistic that is barely relevant to the armour - projectile interation due to how Gaijin codes armour protection (i.e as a flat protection equivalent).
-
You seem to forget that penetration is only half the equation - the other is weight, M322 & DTC are both significantly heavier & their spall is more consistent (but you wouldn’t know how they compare because you’ve never played the Leclercs to get a feel of OFL F1s performance).
You saying otherwise does not change the reality of the matter my friend, victim blaming does not look very nice either.
My MK3D’s stock grind was completed back when the tank came off the event line, I’ve not bought the mine protection after it’s re-work, but please, keep talking like you understand this.
Nice strawman and trying to deflect from the in game projectile stats, me using a vehicle wont change the properties of their equipment contrary to what you seem to be insinuating.
Sadly the only person here that doesn’t think you’re acting like a victim here is only you.
Doesn’t change what i said, nor i asked you.
Ok, lets go by statistics then since you do like them.
OFL 120 F1 for Reference
DTC10-125 have marginally better penetration and weights more.
Spoiler
M338 have better weight and penetration.
Spoiler
M322 have much better weight and better penetration.
Spoiler
There is only one nation with a worse APFSDS than LKE1(OFL 120 F1), and that nation is Britain.
Spoiler
As you can see, even if we go off projectile stats, LKE1(OFL 120 F1) is worse than all the rounds you stated that are at 11.7, im not going to count M829A1 because its not an 11.7 round, every other round is much better so its not worth mentioning either, so what is your point now?
2 Likes
And i still take it over DM53 because Britain (The TD isn’t the greatest)
My dude quotes introduction times then states they are irrelevant, kek.
Oh hey look, shifting the goalposts away from the AIM and Clickbait and to the original M1A2 and Challenger 2, did not expect you to claim the original iteration of the chally 2 is good, but ok.
Coping about falling for bait, nice.
Already stated it a few times, I used 3BM42 as a metric as it is the most bog standard round across the board without being a turbodart, to that same end, you can penetrate the entire running UFP of the entire M1 series with A2 but this is not shown by the pen calc, something I have already highlighted.
I have no interest in gauging turbo darts as a metric, unless you want to see how everyone fairs against the 292.
Would be nice to have my T series fuel tanks stop exploding when shot, I hear that all the time, or are we going to say that the Leopards, Type X and Leclercs are worse off then them? I can shift goalposts too.
Yes because you seem to be interested in pulling data from 2019 to validate your arguments I get to pull dated info of other OP transgression as well, you cant have your cake and eat it too my friend.
For someone who has been around since 2014, I cannot believe you have no knowledge of how LOS penetration works in WT. Yes Gaijin treats all armor LOS as 0 degree RHAe, but saying the 60 degree perforation limit on APFSDS-T is irrelevant misguided at best.
Here, take a read of the old forums real quick : Question; What is LOS penetration and is it implimented to War Thunder? - Ground Forces Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum
TLDR ish : LOS penetration is derived from doubling the value of the rounds perforation capabilities at 60 degrees but applies only towards APFSDS-T shells, meaning that your 60 degree perforation value is derives what your actual 0 degree perforation value is, this is indecently a uniquely APFSDS-T feature in WT.
There used to be some much more in-depth looks into how gaijin implemented this but sadly the old forums are nearly impossible to root through now.
What are you on about