abram would be reaching those numbers in game if they had it only fight t54, t55, and t72.
5 Likes
Not as impressive when you consider most of the time US fought literal farmers equipped with AKs and had like T-55s as their main tanks lol.
Not to mention using CAS excursions to deal with any remotely fortified enemy position also helped M1s survive.
3 Likes
How is the Iraq army back in 1990 farmers with pitchforks last time I checked Huda Hussain at the time had the fifth largest military in the world they had over 2800 fighter aircraft 6000+ tanks and a 1.8 million Man army The Taliban at that time had no aircraft had thousands of armed, fighting vehicles and tanks and a well trained military that had fought of the Soviet Union and destroyed them
The battle of 72 Easting look it up The US fault literally in a desert storm Was trading rounds back-and-forth with a T 72’s all night long
Holy crap, go an play falcon bms where the f-16 is nearly 99% identical to the real one and then come here and tell me again that war thunder is a simulator
I was a Tanker I fought in an Abram’s Ik what I’m saying. I have combat time in that vehicle Ik what it can and can’t do. literally spent years living in that fucking thing I’m telling you with the bottom sincerity of my heart the tank is absolutely modeled wrong. I’m not gonna go in detail with classified stuff, but it’s modeled so wrong.
Yes, they do. You clearly haven’t seen the Challenger in recent history.
It also has 1 tonne of paint on it, but that means absolutely nothing.
1980s and 1990s technology are currently facing more modern vehicles because of abhorrent compression and a lack of quickly introduced modern vehicles. The SEPv3 can come in at 12.3 with the T-90M and Leo 2A7V being moved up as well as the game would be better off.
The 2S38 and HSTV-L are entirely different vehicles designed for entirely different purposes.
1 Like
“Falcon 4.0 BMS” hurts my head
The game markets itself as a realistic style simulator It literally says that in commercials here in the United States if you say one thing, and you sell another, that’s kind of illegal
Quantity isn’t the same as quality.
M1s vastly outmatched anything they seen.
Same as above.
Guess M1s and thousands upon thousands of bombs haven’t helped US defeat farmers with T-55s as well.
1 Like
For one you talk like someone who’s never fought a war who’s never stepped in one of these vehicles before let me assure you, son in Afghanistan and Iraq we were hit with multiple rounds That should have destroyed us I’m talking about 155 Shells flown in by drones still didn’t do anything what are you saying your talking to a vet that fought in the m1a1 to the sep v2 block 1 Ik what I’m saying
yeah whatever, Falcon bms, derived from the 1998 Falcon 4.0, but you still need 4.0 to install bms
1 Like
Use your Big boy brains there’s a reason only 58 Abrams have been destroyed versus the literal thousands of the T 70s and 80s They’re literally built more superior built, better built to survive not to send its crew into the upper atmosphere
The very basis of the instructor system is necessitated by it being an arcade game.
It isn’t? SAS doesn’t calculate slip angle and doesn’t adjust baed on it, with sideslip being very crudely calculated.
Honestly… Play any busted FM and you’d see this. F-14, EF-2k, even the Jeff when it released.
Torque is a simple function to calculate and implement.
If you want to talk about propeller physics, how did prop feathering cause the P-63 to hit 780km/h on the deck?
Again, engine torque was already addressed.
P factor is just a simple, and can be implemented alongside torque applications on most propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft.
Spiraling slipstream isn’t implemented in-game. Hell, rudder effect on the ground and wheel steering isn’t even in-game, let alone this.
3rd time here, torque is a very simple thing to implement to ANY game. Hell, I have arcade flight games on my phone that model it.
4th time, torque is a simple function that is almost arbitrarily applied to aircraft based on their throttle input and thrust.
Increasing drag profiles on different sections of an aircraft’s DM? Brother… Battlefield 5 did this same exact thing and it’s as much of a flight simulator as Ace Combat 7.
Not indicative of a simulator, and half of its functions aren’t implemented in-game. Mixture is useless and does nothing except for kill your engine at a VERY specific altitude threshold, while turbo adjustments do nothing to your power and simply shut down your engine (no damage whatsoever) if you change it.
No wing flutter or flex adjustment to FMs, radars that are about as realistic as World of Warship’s hydrophones, there are a LOT of blatant issues with RB that would be apparent if you had more than 3k total matches in the mode.
MSFS is known for its disgusting flight models and horrible quality of output. At this point there are entire communities that pledge that it ISN’T a simulator.
LOMAC has more simulated systems than this game… And it’s a Falcon knockoff.
wtf are you talking about
1 Like
No what are you talking about your just rambling off bullshit are you even English?
I think you replied to the wrong comment I was just talking about falcon bms and you suddendly start yelling about abrams and flying T-72 turrets, I didn’t say anything about this
I would suggest that you take some time to practice. Skipping straight to top tier is not a good idea. Especially is you are going in expecting the abrams to tank hits from t80 and t90 like it could tank hits from t55s.
3 Likes
You can literally abuse forward slips to land a plane from too much altitude without overspeeding. It’s my favourite way to land my props.
Hard left rudder, stick to the right, plane flies straight ahead while nose points to the left. You’re plummeting out of the sky like a brick and make a clean touchdown.
And what does the instructor have to do with coordinated flight?
Coordinated flight is using appropriate rudder/trim to keep the nose of the plane properly aligned despite left-turning tendencies, both in and out of turns.