Gaijin and modern NATO armor

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.

8 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

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.

5 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.

Ah yes my favourite kind of news. The completely unsourced kind!

1 Like

Sorry, but why are this guys post not already flagged and why is it not already banned? Dude has violated half communities guidelines (political discussion, propaganda + off topic)… I’ve seen people post been flagged for way less…

5 Likes

my post have been removed for less lol

4 Likes

Vatniks get a free pass around here.

1 Like