That’s one hell of a way to make a contradiction.
Idk, against 3BM60 its pretty much the same protection with the same amount of penable zones.
122 at PB vs BM-60
2A7V (same place) at 100 meters vs BM-60
Here’s also DM53 at PB distance vs 122s upper plate, this spot can be perforated by DM53 at even 2km’s.
“same amount of pennable zones”, maybe stop talking when you have no clue what you’re talking about?
Well, then pen analysis is broken with this spots, i guess
its not pen analysis, its in game calculations due to wrong implementation
Congrats, yes. The in-match situation is completely different from what PA shows. The amount of turret weakpoints is also higher on the 2A7V than the 122s (it’s actually higher than 2A5s as well).
People who state 2A7V is good because of its armour are completely clueless, the armour it has is arguably the least important of its positivies, the biggest ones in numerical order would be;
The 2A7V is good, however i’d pick the 122’s anyway because the armor is better and you have x3 of them instead of only one tank. Also the 2A7V is slower, which wouldn’t be an issue if it accelerate like a 2A4 like it should, but it really doesn’t.
Then idk how basically the same armor values (btw, is there datamine for them) can have so much difference? Maybe you missed your shots then?
And its still has the best shell anyway.
Because the model is causing it… you’ve never taken a look at this thread before, have you? I made a break-down of everything that’s wrong, and why the model is the biggest issue up to date when it comes to the 2A7V.
No they always generalize, look at the chart, it’s literally always generalized.
Why is XYZ-70s TUNGSTEN APFSDS sitting at 18.5g/cc then? Or the M735 for that matter?
oh yeah lets say the T80BVM now gets pen’d frontally by anything from Type 10 up to DM53 now what would you think about it? yes the armor its wrong it should be higher and the same goes for the 2A7V, so you are putting as an argument that why would it need more armor since i cant pen it with my 3BM60 but other shells can pen it, anyways at the end you’ll have to aim at the weakspots like everyone else does when aiming at the STRV 122 weakspots
It says up to it does not mean that everything they make is of that density. This is not even close to sufficient for a bug report. They have always required specific information.
What do you mean its not enough man, @FurinaBestArchon provided them with the needed source, what else would be needed?
in the report there is already information referring to the density of the tungsten that its obviously being used in the DM53 by the company making DM53
specific information about it being used on DM53/63/73, as said. Production capabilities in general are not production capabilities of a specific shell.
Rheinmetall at the moment produces only 2 APFSDS projectile families;
Why did they name drop 18.5g/cc if neither of those achieves said density? Your mental gymanstics are beyond me at this point.
obvious is not specific, gajin has never accepted “obvious”
Because it’s an advertisement? Because they’re advertising their capabilities?
“By anything from Type 10 to DM53” It is quite limited range, tbh. Cause it will be only three shells.
Not my.
I still have to aim to quite limited numbers of spots, where i can OS Leo2. More armor just makes it harder because of some randomness
Right? They’re making an advertisement for THEIR PRODUCTS, the tungsten alloys they make your PRODUCTS out of, and they specify that those PRODUCTS are made out of an alloy that achieves 18.5g/cc density, what else is there to it?
You’re coming up with every possible excuse at this point just to argue that they couldn’t have possibly gave out the density of their alloys like that, but they did.
