Oh no, no one cares about my opinion. Cry more kid.
that’s a childish behavior on your part, because someone doesn’t share your point of view you are saying that no one care, sadly its not how it work.
5 Likes
You clearly don’t understand why I’m telling you to leave. The problems with the vehicles you are talking about I am not agreeing or disagreeing with. You are in a topic that has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with what you are talking about. There is no coloration there
The Contact-1 doesn’t bounce APFSDS at that angle either though. The protection analysis is wrong.
2 Likes
Interesting, it should potentially bounce off that too
This is not about pointing fingers and saying the other guy is being an infant. That goes for you too @ileaveuptiers
Here’s the reality. Unless we consistently make noise or decide to drop the game, Gaijin has no reason to fix what needs fixing.
Unfortunately for Italy, it is a smaller nation that just isn’t played as often at high tiers. It isn’t meta, it was never intended to be a ‘winner’ in an offense, it was and is always purely a defensive minded army with fast reaction forces and tanks with good guns and good gun depression for engagements in hilly terrain that suits Italy as a whole. It was never intended for mass market worldwide. It is what the Italians need.
This means that it is going to be lower on the table of fixes, alongside Leclerc. I don’t like it, I don’t approve of it, but them’s the breaks.
The Abrams is one of the biggest glaring flaws because of aforementioned posts that have resoundingly proven that the model is incorrect, and it is one of the penultimate main battle tanks that many players want to play.
For some, like me, it was our job. A way of life. I was a tanker, that’s my tank. And I want to see it modeled correctly. But unless it is fixed and given the proper model, players will resoundingly do the same one death leaving they’ve always done to avoid further grinding, because hey, they’re just there to ‘have fun’, and they’re not concerned about ‘winning’.
2 Likes
No, it punches through and detonates the ERA, though it rarely damages more than the track. The claimed ricochet result is probably a result of the weird way Gaijin models ERA, since they treat it like simple extra armor, even though it doesn’t work like that. Neither ERA should really be affecting large caliber APFSDS, as Contact-1 is actually too insensitive to detonate on impact from KE projectiles, and iirc TUSK lacks the thick flyer plates necessary to significantly impede APFSDS (though it should provide more KE than it does in game)
Seems like it does work off the Kontakt1 but does not work off the ERA which is 30mm thick. Shouldn’t the heading angle change depending on where you hit the curvature of the ERA plates? It doesn’t do it in game
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.
1 Like
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.
I read that the Russian ones won’t detonate unless it’s from chemical rounds. Even if they get racked, they still won’t explode
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.
Very cool!
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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like