I meant Volumetric hell in as the mantlet should be trolly to properly pen due to the design of the breech block. The green holes I showed are small and if the CR2 is moving, accurately penning the weak spots would be hard as shells would just be adsorbed by the 600mm parts.
Not physically Volumetric/non-volumetric shenanigans.
The breech does currently have parts of it that are 400mm where the effectiveness is ~500mm in some spots. If you’ve got a source for them to make it 600mm at its thickest instead of 400mm, you should definitely make a bug report.
We are misunderstanding each other.
The breech has is 400mm at its thickest part.
Where my 600mm is coming from is in TOTAL THICKNESS of the mantlet plates.
400mm breech + 60mm breech support plate + 30mm mantlet cover + 50mm mantlet cover.
600mm is the what the total armour effectiveness should be to the left and right of the gun. BUT somehow the actually in game protection is still a measly 240mm and not a more correct 600mm.
Well, it is 500-600 in very specific areas. Along with some parts where it just says “no damage” without even mentioning the thickness (which truly end up being spots where you do no damage).
So it’s not like it isn’t modeled as being 600 nowhere. Clearly the issue is that it’s only modeled as such on a few select spots instead of on a more major part of the breech.
The edges between the mantlet and turret cheeks are obviously near the proper protection to the amount due the geometry of the ends of the breech being circles. My problems are the left and right mantlet cheeks.
The mantlet cheeks should be upwards of 600mm instead of the current 240mm
Here a more accurate representation of the CR2 mantlets should be.
The numbers physically don’t add up correctly. That’s the problem with the Challenger Mantlets.
NATO wont get something better therefore russia shouldnt get something better for balance
tor is ussr design and for some reason china gets it but russia always needs to be biased and get something better that is the best in the game
then you dont play toptier, in every match with russia there are atleast few kamovs
you cant even fly 1500km/h at ground level and not get spotted by one of those rat helis
2a7 armor is a joke anyways, russian bias IS real
here a pic of my 2a7 dying to a t80bvm HE shell hit in turret
a f*ing HE to strongest part of a7 armor
There is overpressure mechanic in game, it’s what killed you
meahwhile BVM eating everything and not dying with its magic fake stats lego blocks
Have you heard of Overpressure? It would have done the same to the T-80 had you shot it’s mantlet. And I’m sure someone can prove it.
which is like 3 times smaller and harder to hit
t80bvm is just fake
just look how often it blocks shells side on with its magic era, shells go through driver,ammo and engine without detonating ammo, turret ring and its tracks blocking all damage,… and how easily a leopard dies when penetrated
not to mention kamovs tanking few AAMS and even apfsds flying without tail without issue
whenever I look at someones stats t80bvm has 60% winrate leo2a7 has 40% winrate
lol You died to a missile that’s worse than an Igla.
and you are proving my point by having 60% wr on t80bvm in 124 battles
and 49,48% on m1a2 abrams and type 10 in comparable amount of battles
So your point is team skill is what causes win rates and not the tank itself.
M1A2 is a superior tank to T-80BVM, that’s obvious to everyone that isn’t Russian or loves Russia.
Also other vehicles that match BVM’s win rate on my profile:
Leopard 2PL, Bishma TWMP, Challenger 2, Challenger Mk3, M1A1 HC, M60 AMBT, ZTZ96A.
Guess you think Challenger Mk3 is as “OP” as T-80BVM.
Just cause my teams are bad doesn’t mean a tank is bad.
all of those vehicles arent 11.7, stop manipulating lol
I’m showing the state of russian bias playing on 11.7
EVERYONE has 60% wr on t80bvm, its straight up proof of russia having a much better lineup than any other country at 11.7
There is no Russian bias.
It’s a myth made up by Russians to make themselves feel better about their mid vehicles.
So when are they fixing Stingers? Oh wait…
1- This is about Abrams.
2- Stingers are currently better than Igla by far.
2a- You proved no Russian bias by bringing up an American missile that’s better than Soviet equivalent.
The claim about Russian Bias was never siloed to some specific set of examples, and the claim of not existing is very broad and so easily disprovable statement, due to that fact.
If you needed one though compare how much they have resisted implementing any sort of improvement to the hull NERA array, and compare that to the planned IRST & HMD on the Yak-141, or various limited run / prototype Thermals being present on Whatever T-80 configuration that is relevant.
Ok? That doesn’t make them properly implemented.
So can you explain the following erroneous performance? Stingers don’t seem to be doing all to well.
Let alone the already linked explanation of the oversights made in the MANPADS Article? or their use of Soviets sources and flawed assumptions that with all of 10 minutes of looking were dispelled.
