U rlly don’t know what happened
2 Likes
There werent really any insults made. You cant see that now cuz all the posts got deleted, but it was mostly just some players asking smin why thr nerf was so heavy and unrealistic, followed by players saying it was a really bad look to hide those post and ban people
I even complimented smin and my post was removed (not by smin)
Either way, not very on topic, itd be nice if we got a statement from gaijin about yhe absurd nerf to the leo 2’s
4 Likes
I think what is most ridículous is when we start having a conversation about how this mechanics of spall liners working less on leopards than on T90M’s aswell as having twice as much spall as the breach should reallisticaly have, people making other tech trees like in this case they starts to tell us we have no rights to cry about this Even tho this is clearly not supossed to happen, i would be fine if they had an opinión but mess with other TT’s functioning by doing Bug reports like the one above out of spite, it’s not only ridículous but childish.
2 Likes
This dosent mean no one can come and comment their opinión and questions, just as long as it’s not.
. Trying to gaslight
. Insulting anybody
. Spread missinformation
It’s fine to have your own opinión and You can discuss it pacifically
2 Likes
This is the reason I stopped playing GRB above 9.0.
If anything, it’s more deserving of moving down to 10.3 rather than upwards to 11.0.
Something like a M1 or Leo 2A4 are infinitely better suited to the War Thunder META than the T-90A is. If the T-90A were at 11.0 it’d be the same BR as the MASSIVELY superior M1A1 which would just be absurd.
It should, it’s penetration is essentially the only positive thing about it. Even then 3BM-42 is already sufficient on the T-80B, so 3BM-60 doesn’t massively improve the overall experience anyways.
But without that 3BM-60 + 2nd gen thermals, it’s be an utter waste of time as everything else about it is horrendous:
- Shared worst turret traverse at high tier? ✔
- Literal worst gun depression? ✔
- Abysmal reload rate? ✔
- Literal worst reverse speed at high tier? ✔
- No neutral steering? ✔
- Only 3 crew? ✔
- Exposed ammunition everywhere leading to constant one-hit-deaths? ✔
- Abysmal acceleration? ✔
- Atrocious reverse steering? ✔
- Obvious and simple to hit weakspots? ✔
All of that being said, where 10.7-11.0 Leopard 2A4 C-technologie with DM33 Gaijin?
2 Likes
Hello guys
Thanks for raising a report about the spall generation on the Leopard 2A5/6/7 series. This will require further review and study before its possible to answer. However its been passed to the developers for review: Community Bug Reporting System
26 Likes
tanks not blowing up when the " external " internal fuel tanks are hit? russian spall liners? ??? that bias. pantsir? ka 50? 30km he missile?
so where are the spall liners in other nation vehicles?
like what vehicles?
He draws the wrong conclusions from the wrong experiments. Either out of ignorance or deliberately to confirm his own false statement. Modules eat the shrapnel and then he says the angle of spread is smaller. If he wants to show the truth he needs to shoot where a lot of empty space as in leopard case.
The t80 has the same spall cone as other mbt. And Relikt don’t help:
2a7 problem is that his hull spall liner has stopped working:
The turret spall liner is still working properly:
T90M hull spall liner is still work fine:
So if anyone wants to fix the leopards let them make a report about bug with leo hull spall liners. But that problem only for 2a7 and strv122. 2a4/5/6 don’t have problem with spall cone unless it’s a general bug with spall cones and than it is affecting all mbt.
6 Likes
in this image it dosent touch any other component and in fact goes against the side of a T90M without ERA modification
How does this picture contradict what I said?
refering to this part here.
The spall liner was caught sleeping or something cuz it really isnt affecting the spall, specailly noticeable in the T80BVM test, max angle of spall the 2A6 got was 100 degrees meanwhile the T80BVM reaches a max angle of spall was 91 degrees with no spall liner, def something is wrong
1 Like
Are you kidding me? Open your eyes. Especially since I draw all the lines by eye. There could be a 3-6 degree error. There is no point in looking at the exact values.
This concept is flat out the standard to which all Western ground vehicle fuel cells have been built to since the 1970s.
To that same end, like how blowout doors are modeled, any perforation would allow a fuel fire to enter the crew compartment. Unless these tanks can instantly self seal, which no tank can IRL, there is no way for these to stop some of the explosion to exit through the tank perforation.
That is unless we want to make it so blowout panel doors are also blast proof from front on impacts.
ah right my bad, the images of the T80BVM are pretty tiny ngl, and still, shows the leopards spall liner isnt working correctly
Yea pretty much that. To declare russian fuel tanks inside the combat compartment to be ‘external’ tanks (lol^^) is hilarious. But it happened. Its like George Orwell’s 1982: 2 + 2 is not 4^^
3 Likes