Actually try shooting, I’ve done it multiple times in both real games and prot analysis, the shell will go through. Also, you are now looking at the 1989 T-72B, which has K-5, an ERA made to actually disrupt (Though at that angle, you’re not damaging anything besides a track).
The heading angle not changing is weird though, but the effective thickness does go up as you change the angle, so I would guess it’s still calculating the angle, just not showing it. Wouldn’t be the first thing gaijin fucked up.
I think he has valid points when it comes to the vehicles he has in question but complaining in this topic is counterintuitive to what he would like to see done. It’d bring way more attention to the issue if he made his own post instead of bashing people who want the US fix completed.
I wonder if the cosmetic models that we see are different than the hit box models that the game simulates. My apologies I’m not sure which tank you’re referring to that uses that
Possibly, or it could be any other sort of Gaijin jank at this point.
Also, I was just pointing out you used two different Russian ERAs. The first post used the original T-72B, which has contact 1 that cannot affect APFSDS in any way. However, in your last post you used the 1989 T-72B, which uses contact 5 instead, which can actually impede APFSDS.
Ah I see but both do show to be able to ricochet shots. There’s no chance to ricochet on the tusk armor is why I mentioned it. The outer ERA plates are 30mm thick and have quite the curve to them. You’d think that a poorly placed shot would ricochet off of them. I checked out the t72b and your right, it pens through. That’s pretty weird. I checked the xray, and it seems the t72b has them modeled as one piece (maybe a problem with that model too) whereas the t72 1989 has an external armor sheet (ricochets) as does the sep v1 and v2 (both do not ricochet)
The T-72B ricochets seem weird, it’s a 50/50 on whether it ricochets or pens. But for some reason on the ricochets the ERA doesn’t detonate, but when the shell pens it does. I feel like this is definitely some sort of modeling/simulation bug. My best guess would be it has to do with Gaijin’s weird modeling of ERA, since it counts contact-5 as being 120mm effective thick, so the pen calculator assumes the dart is hitting a lot more armor than it actually is.
Though I still don’t think ARAT can ricochet full caliber tank rounds, as it is only ~30mm thick (and probably less thick in terms of pure steel on account of the explosive filler). The issue is more that contact-5 shouldn’t be bouncing shells, not that since contact-5 can ARAT should as well.
Ultimately though I do think this is a minor issue resulting from Gaijin’s penetration modeling, but I don’t think it’s a huge deal. All of the ricocheted shots from contact-5 would have only damaged the track if they did pen at best, and if you’re shooting from such a sharp angle that the ERA ricochets, there’s plenty of much juicier targets for you to aim at.
That’s only for some of them, such as contact-1. Contact-5 and Relikt are sensitive to APFSDS impacts, which combined with their thick flyer plates allows them to disrupt the flight path of the round. Though pretty much all Russian ERA is designed to avoid detonation from nearby plates or a tank fire.
I see you keep saying these win rates are based off a teams skill and each time I laugh and carry on. Let me ask you this. How does a problem such as ODL pertain to any type of skill? How do you think a team of 4 players does against a team of 12-16 players on average even translate to anything skill related? Cause in your eyes that team of 4 lost because their skill wasn’t as much as the opponents team… When I’m fact they were simply just outnumbered. That isn’t a skill issue and I would expect anyone that lives on this forum suck at yourself would understand this and be able to differentiate the actual differences. This is just one of the many reasons I normally just ignore you other than me just not liking you. Be part of the solution and not a part of or the party of the problem.
One death leaving is also a factor in winrate, but it can be tied to team skilll aswell.
Good players don’t leave after one death when in favourable conditions. Players who often only have 1 vehicle at that BR (premium players) will do it often too.
All of that affects winrates, and it’s why Americans winrate is so poor at top tier. It’s less the tanks, and more the players.
Correct but that’s not a skill issue though and my only point in that. Sure we can call that a “player problem” but my point is skill was and never was a variable in that matches results. It wasn’t much of a match to begin with really. That’s all I was saying and how to clarify that simple thing
My win rate with the higher M1A2s is like 33%. My winrate with the Leo 2A6 is 60%.
I’ve played with a lot of teams, and I must say that, at least between the “big 3 nations,” all the players suck equally. The abrams is just too squishy.
One death leave, which isn’t even the majority of my losses, is a flaw of planning skill.
If you don’t plan your lineup correctly, that’s still a matter of skill.
Aligning premium purchases with squadron vehicle acquisition is simple knowledge anyone can apply to hone a necessary skill.
I’ve been advising people on lineup creation and tactics for over 6 years. I have constantly been part of the solution, for free.
Meanwhile you look down on those that help others? lol
Its really simple. The abrams is terrible and needs to be buffed, a long with all other non leopard/T-series tanks. Leclerc, merkava, chally, ztz, ect… They all NEED to be buffed, even to just COMPETE with leopards. Its insane to me that for literally 3 years america has had a sub 45% win rate at top tier while germany/russia are over 60% and nothing happens other than a pointless reload change. The simple truth is that this game is down to average player. The average america player in an abrams is much much less effective than a equally skilled player in a leopard. This is what causes the disparity, the tanks of america and other nations are just not good enough to compete full stop.
I would accept a leopard nerf, along the lines of the reload nerf they got a while back. Something needs to be done, I simply do not understand who these america players are who queue up to get utterly dunked on every single match over 60% of the time. It would be such a better game if the top tier win rates were closer to 50%, we could be so close to a parity with just simple buffs all tanks that arent leopards or T80/90.
Man, we’ll never hear the end of the leopard mains complaining that “the USA got my tanks nerfed” if that happens. They already constantly whinge and whine about their armor being ahistorical (but still best in the game).
The major problem with the US top tier is that it lacks any vehicles that can sustain damage and fight back. The abrams is great in terms of firepower and mobility, but its way too weak in terms of protection. The fact that the entire hull has got no resistance to even a L27 means that it can easily be crippled in a urban map. This, combined with the fact that USA is a large techtree with a lot of players, means that they do not have a good vehicle to relieve pressure in frontal confrontentation, thus, is cannot lead the main attack and assult better armored nations like RU and the Leo enjoyers. While some may argue that it has got enough armor on the turrent, allowing it great protection when hull down, this doesnt mean a lot, as most of the matches at top tier is still urban.
Overall, US players have less time to decide and aim carefully when surprised and are more easily crippled and destroyed.
Added with the great CAS ability of the F16C, which means that US players are less willing to stay on the ground and relieve enemy pressure. And the fact that the best AA is the panstir and ito, whcih has a high chance of killing F16s also disadvantages the US. Therefore, for USA players, the combination of a weak protection and less reward for staying on the ground means that they cannot fulfill the role of a large techtree, which is frontally facing the enemy attack and pushing the enemy controlled zones.
Generally, Abrams is a good tank, great mobility and firepower, but it is not a “big techtree tank” like the leos and the t80/90s. Therefore, one shouldnt compare it to tanks of smaller techtrees like the Merk and the challys or the Lecs.
So, there is only one way of buffing the Abrams: Buffing its armor, and compensating by cutting its riduculious fire rate to that of a normal 120mm NATO gun, like the one on L2A7.
(Gaijin should also buff minor nations’ tanks too, eg: give the chally more armor or give brits the chally 2 LEP, give the lec its correct armor and buff the Merk in some other way)
You come in making the team skill argument again.
You cannot nerf/buff because team skill is up or down, that’s not how Gaijin operates nor should they ever operate that way.
40% of rounds shot at my M1A1 [the 11.0 one] have bounced in the last month of playing it. I was surprised each time.
At the end of the day M1A1 HC onward has armor… just not in the hull. And is always capable of bouncing a panic shot.
Also F-16C isn’t what added great CAS capability, F-14B did.
F-16C just made the OP nature of F-14B even more OP.
