Laser rangefinder is not a big plus unless you are firing from past like 1.5km. Apfsds hardly needs to account for bullet.
Thermals are also marginal in most cases.
1 Like
bro laser rangefinder not even needed, at top tier you should know how to optically rangefind and since dart is fast just get used to using without rangefinder
2 Likes
yes yes, in my opinion thermals can even harm you when seeing if tank is dead or alive
i know, but Laser Rangefinder should be same rank for all nations, because nations that have it sooner, are easier to play and grind
1 Like
What can we do ¯_(ツ)_/¯
idk how you, but i am using Laser Rangefinder almost always when its more than ± 400m even when i know its kinda pointless, but i have that on mouse button that i am pressing right before i am firing
and Thermal is for me thing that i have almost always on, because i have problem to see tanks (even red christmas camo that is for challanger in green forrest), so i have to be using thermal vision to see them better
That is working to your disadvantage. The enemy will usually not be doing that so they will be able to get the first shot off.
yes, i am able to play without that when i have stock tank, but when i have it, my aim is better
when i know that enemy is aiming on me, i dont care about than laser rangefinder, yes, i still click so it will give me than info, but i fired before it will even finished :D when i know that enemy is not looking at me, i am waiting for that, so, its not happening that they are firing first :D rarely yes, but mostly because i am blind xD
No I didn’t and wouldn’t recommend, specially USA, USSR, Germany, Britain and Sweden, everything else top tier is playable.
T-80BVM and any Soviet MBT or similar design is easy to take out at most distances, if you have a functional brain you won’t engage a target at long distances with Chemical ammunitions when said target has armor to counter this ammunition type.
The Type 90 and Type 10 is easy because: people are not used to fight it, you have a quick reload cannon, you’re going to reload much faster compared to anything else. Which, makes it good with decent composite values and firepower a great brawler, compared to the T-80BVM, which T-90M is better at close ranges.
2 Likes
Fair.
I would still say that it doesnt matter much. For me, the only mods that actually give huge benefits are parts, fpe, and apfsds.
yes, good player can play without laser rangefinder, but new players that have top tier tanks, are quite useless without that xD
one guy that is playing with me, he is ok, when he is using Clickbait, but when he is in AIM or any other Abrams what he have without laser rangefinder, he is kinda useless xD
at range 1km, its not easy to kill T-80 and etc, without laser rangefinder, why? because most of the time, APFSDS will ricochet or explosive armor will eat that shell, its something that i saw from both sides :D
Type 90/Type 10 and decent composite values? almost any hit = you are dead xD only when you are lucky or your enemy dont have brain, than you can survive more :D
and also, about what is playable i cant agree on that, like for me, Sweden, Japan is pretty good, Germany, China, USSR is ok, Britain and USA is worse, but still playable, but with less win rate
about Italy, France, Israel i dont know, since i was not playing this nations and i dont have there any top tier
Honestly, they shouldnt even be there in the first place. Although top tier is the easiest aiming wise, it is too fast paced for someone who is not familiar with the game.
Im fairly certain this applies to everything in game, not just *USSR vehicles (Muh Russian Bias)
that guy who is playing with me, have normal top tier tanks, like he have normal Type 90, but since they are not fully upgraded, he is ok only with Fuji :D
yeah, but most nations dont lie that much as Russia about there things, for so many things, was already confirmed, that Europe or USA had on paper worse stat than it was in reality, so in reality there things were even better than it was on paper, for Russia and few times for China, was confirmed that on paper there things were better than in reality, and since it happend so many times for Russia, its quite ok be expecting that it will happend again
like in history, Russia and China were doing that, so there things will be same good as Europe and USA things
i think good example is Mig-25 :D on paper really good jet, Russia was saying its really good jet, than one Mig-25 landed in Japan, and everyone saw, how bad and problematic it is xD
Thats kind of sad…
If you grinded up to top tier, you should not have to use the rangefinder for such rounds sub-1000m
yeah, i think its sad too :/ but at least i am trying to help him
Not necessarily true. Every nation lies to some extent. Any proof on your behalf?
This is a really confusing sentence so I’ll get AI to fix it up
“Many times, it has been confirmed that in Europe and the USA, official statistics often made things seem worse on paper than they actually were in reality. In contrast, for Russia (and occasionally China), it has been confirmed multiple times that official statistics made things appear better on paper than they truly were. Since this has happened repeatedly with Russia, it is reasonable to expect that it will happen again. Historically, Russia and China have presented their situations as being on par with those in Europe and the USA, even when the reality may have been different.”
Ok, better.
Again, do you have proof over any of these statements, because again, Nations, even the US, lie. (Shocking!)
I can’t find a SINGLE source stating that everyone saw that it was problematic and bad. From the wiki, after that Mig Landed in Japan:
The analysis, based on technical manuals and ground tests of its engines and avionics, revealed unusual technical information:
Belenko’s particular aircraft was brand new, representing the latest Soviet technology.
The aircraft was assembled quickly and was essentially built around its massive Tumansky R-15(B) turbojets.
Welding was done by hand. Rivets with non-flush heads were used in areas that would not cause adverse aerodynamic drag.[37]
The aircraft was built of a nickel-steel alloy and not titanium, as was assumed (although some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft’s high 29,000 kg (64,000 lb) unarmed weight.
Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s2) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s2). One MiG-25 withstood an inadvertent 11.5 g (112.8 m/s2) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the resulting deformation damaged the airframe beyond repair.[38]
Combat radius was 299 kilometres (186 mi), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 1,197 kilometres (744 mi) at low altitude, less than 1,000 m (3,300 ft).[13]
The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines.[31] A MiG-25 was tracked flying over the Sinai Peninsula at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight caused the engines to be damaged beyond repair.[37]
The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum tube technology, more specifically nuvistors, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for environmental controls in the avionics bays. With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P’s original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name “Foxfire”) radar had enormous power, about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as robust as possible. Use of nuvistors was speculated to be part of an effort to harden the aircraft against electromagnetic pulse, but it may simply have been due to adoption of semiconductor technology in the Soviet Union.[39]
Again, it was designed to do one thing: Intercept SR-71s. Nothing else. I cannot find anything stating it was poorly designed, etc. Care to help?