And now you’re accusing the entire planet of being Russia.
Wow…
Dude, the planet isn’t Russia. There are 170+ countries.
All I’ve done is correct people that push hate.
No, I’m speaking to you, of you only. Again, as someone above said, we see your bias in your comments. Every time it’s defending this company or Russian vehicles. It’s a pattern. I don’t think I’ve seen you defend other nations vehicles here unless I’m wrong. So what do you call that? Or if you have it’s been very little. Almost always defending any criticism of Russian vehicles or Gaijin.
And my post or comments is not hate. It’s about vehicles in this game that are seeming to be obviously biased and acting better than others or how they should. I’m not talking about people or real nations. That would be hate. I’m talking about how unfair and uncompetitive this game feels very often, for certain nations or against certain nations. Or unrealistic. It’s about the vehicles, and their performance. As my post states.
I’m not sure what that picture is trying to demonstrate but here is a better comparison. First 5 shots on each, perspective match on last bullet + barrel with warthunder image overlaid over IRL footage at 68% opacity. The spread and the bullet drop differences are obvious. The slightly brighter bullets are HE rounds in the game. The more sparse and slightly dimmer lights are bullets from the IRL footage.
My bias is toward facts, everyone can see this.
I’ve commented nothing on “Russian” vehicles other than bragging how superior my American equipment is to Soviet equipment, which is defending American equipment, while attacking Soviet equipment.
How is it “Russian bias” to brag about American equipment?
How is it “Russian bias” to criticize Soviet equipment?
In addition to this, you can see a difference in time for each shot in a video like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=div_FGRADiA
I’m guessing the game version is 1.5 to 2.0 times faster than the demonstrations IRL.
At 0:56 you can see this green reticle is moving, indicating the shake in the barrel and the return to neutral state. This is not modelled in game. It is clearly a realistic factor that should be included alongside the shot timing difference. But again, this vehicle is clearly overperforming in the game. Like most of the high tier russian vehicles.
So the game in it’s current state is not only unrealistic, it is also highly biased in terms of fairness. Not that a game about war should be fair. But if the intention of this unrealism is fairness then it has been in the wrong part of the spectrum as early as the first T-80s and T-72s in the game. In average, USA and Germany have more of:
- Older vehicles
- Deficiency leaning inaccuracies in each vehicle
- Badly implemented real and demonstrated ammunition and gun characteristics
- Worse premiums and squadron vehicles
- Need for surgical aim compared to russian vehicle’s point and shoot
This vehicle with it’s AA capability in game (again, not demonstrated in any shape or form IRL) is the ultimate form of bias. Given pantsir is now in the game as well, with no anti-radiation missile implementations. No other nation has AA capability comparable offered as a GE purchasable vehicle. (Chinese missile tank seems to be the closest one)
3 Likes
Germany has the most modern tank in the game [Leopard 2PL].
Very little inaccuracies.
All APFSDS in the game has their accurate penetrations, & you can see their in-game penetrations here: The comprehensive APFSDS penetration datasheet
Leopard 2PL, Hunter F58, Magach, etc.
No more surgical aim than shooting anything else with armor.
I have never died to a Pantsir, and I’ve been within 7km of them in random battles.
They’re the easiest missile to dodge in top BRs.
i am for barrel shake to be implemented but that would make vehicles like the Bradley’s 25mm more relevant but it would be a significant nerf to nations that don’t need nerfs like japan or Italy. bmps would have a major reduction in effective fire rate good thing or bad thing depends what side of the coin you are on but
You replied to the wrong person.
M900A1 is the only round that exists. M900 is incorrectly named in WT.
it exists, but it was too powerful and could not have been used on legacy M68
M900A1 is on the IPM1 in WT. It’s currently incorrectly called M900.
M900 is a cancelled round that was never produced.
1 Like
Most APFSDS are classified but there have been frontal penetrations on BVMs irl (https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10z06xs/how_did_ukraine_penetrate_this_t80bvm_if_war/)
Your spreadsheet for those numbers have no real life sources or information, not sure how you can call them accurate.
Also, here are the armor penetration comparison in game:
So, yes you have to be surgical. Like this is something you can visualize today in the game. Saying “No more surgical aim than shooting anything else with armor.” is not only inaccurate but it is demonstrably false.
I find it really funny that you did not even try to address the premium AA issue.
1 Like
Let’s look at what each vehicle has going for it individually, I think that would help to paint a bigger picture of which is better generally speaking.
HSTV-L pros:
Higher Mobility
Lower Profile
Larger Autoloader Reserve
Better penetration on APFS-DS
2s38 pros:
Higher rate of Fire
Superior Optics
3rd gen Thermals
Better Post-penitration spall
Better Shell selection
Laser-Warning Reciever
Better crew Placement
Ummanned Turret
Preferable BR placement
Premium Economy modifiers
Track Radar for Aircraft
Looking at these advantages, the HSTV-L does some things better than the 2s38, but overall, it’s not even close, the 2s38 just has so much more going for it, including BR placement and even economy.
10 Likes
for gaijin i would just say add something like the rdflt to just surpass the hstv-l but that doesn’t really solve the problem just a band aid fix but that would give it similar capabilities at a much higher br
yes they use a formula to calculate it, however being that both the velocity and mass of the shell in game is incorrect for delta 3 (an easier to remember name for the round in game) this formula is giving incorrect outputs, the velocity is taken from a document from marine corps testing of an unspecified ap shell, and the mass is an estimate which doesnt fit the known information about the shell, furthermore in all reports specifically on delta 3 state that its performance was roughly equivalent to m774
3 Likes
I have been requesting the information from the department of defense for months now and waiting on a proper response as far as i can tell the round the HSTV should do around 330mm of pen at 0 degree but gaijin made a random number up at around 270 with little to none spalling where the 2S38 has around 170mm pen at 0 degree yet has tons of spalling and penetration capabilities compared to the HSTV-l the math is very simple on the HSTV how to calcualte the penetration using the rod legnth and other factors no matter what the vehicle also uses a proxy round in real life gaijin refuses to give it yet the 2s38 has 4 types of round which is insane in itself and even worst thar proxy round is insane. Its just pure bias and greed on there part and im starting to believe they are trying to brainwash people in believing the abrams is paper in real life and thier is polotics deep at play
3 Likes
Gaijin didn’t make any numbers up.
270 is the number you get from plugging in known information into the formula.
No rounds spall, that’s not what spalling is. Spalling is primarily fragments of armor, not fragments of round.
The proxy round is no different to China’s ZSU-57-2 proxy round.
There’s no bias, no greed.
The fact you argue that Abrams is paper is pathetic.
War Thunder shows Abrams is armored & disproves your anti-Abrams nonsense.
Bro what on gods green earth are you smoking? Please send it my way, the abrams is literally paper combared to the leo and the t80 line. Yet its probably the most verstaile and best tank in the world by far and the only argument one could make it the leo is more advanced in some areas but TIA this is America buddy we have the best The Abrams has Depleted Uranium mesh under its plate its better armored than almost every tank in the world. In War thunder besides the small sides of the turret face this thing is rolling paper mache. You can shoot it practically where and its done. Any decent player dosent think twice when facing an Abrams especially a player in a BVM or LEO 2. In war thunder the kills may be up for it only because its a highly played tank especially now because of the f16c and everyone wants to ground pound. I love the Abrams because im an American but if your gonna put my countrys tank in this game and call it realstic then do it justice and model it correctly. Gaijin believe the west is incapable of making reactive armor that dosent exceed 20mm yet the BVM has 200mm!!! Kinetic reactive armor so argument is dumb asf you make 0 sense tell this argument to Any american main like myself about how good the Abrams is
The penetration you are right is not made up, it’s calculated with the (modified) LO formula. But lmao, the dart stats are just straight up made up, it can not be correct.
Stats are:
- 2.2 kg (around the correct value of 2.27 kg)
- 26mm caliber of the submunition (highly questionable, that’s wider than 120mm M829A2)
- ~240mm long dart (derived using WA density, afaik the dart is not DU, but not sure)
- 1463 m/s (actual velocity should be 1646 m/s for what we have in game)
Using these stats gives ~ 262mm perforation limit on the dart. Which is in the ballpark of the values in game, we don’t know the exact modifications Gaijin made to the LO formula or what exact other variables, but that could be the difference here.
Anyways, the diameter and length of the dart are in no way correct. We have a lot more data on ARES’ 45mm COMVAT APSFDS round, being a telescoped round (like XM885) it uses nearly the entire case length as dart length, that’s kinda the point of telescoped muntions. 45mm COMVAT is already of similar dart length to the in game XM885, which is just weird and likely not correct. Sources indicate, and pictures to boot, that the XM885 case is 5.2x19 inches, around 132x483mm, dart length is most likely in excess of 400mm. Plugging in a more reasonable estimate of 20x400mm, with corrected velocity, I get a perforation limit of around 385mm, which would match the similar to M774 performance claim better.
Point being, the dart stats currently in game are completely made up however, I would love for Gaijin to provide sources to the 26mm subcaliber we have now. This all results in wildly inaccurate penetration stats as consequence. Similarly, the Otomatic also uses a subcaliber of 26mm right now, but it penetrates 311mm (like nearly 40mm more than hstv-l) with less mass (very similar tho) by just going 1580 m/s (which is a lot more than what using the standard LO formula predicts), so perhaps the velocity fix to 1646 m/s would already fix the penetration for most part.
5 Likes
Leopard 2 has similar hull armor, and T-80B tanks have worse turrets than M1A1.
Only T-80U gets a good turret, which is in Sweden as well.
I should know, I both own & analyzed the tanks I’m talking about.
American ERA has 400mm of protection currently. BVM is closer to 650. As for anti-kinetic protection; ERA requires infantry-killing materials in order to defeat kinetic rounds, and Russian doctrine doesn’t have infantry around MBTs typically so that allows them to use better ERA.
It’s also why you’ll only ever see Kontakt 1 on vehicles that are around infantry, if any ERA at all.