I’ve made a bug report regarding this.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CTdASKk4Q4bA
If you look they hold the same protection value just not the correct information. I don’t know how Gaijin expects people to see them as competent enough to balance these vehicles much less determine what is valid information if they can’t even properly copy and paste stats.
It seems to be a visual bug, at least when judging from the protection analysis.
heh, I did this too
But for a different reason.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/b4ogshUDi1jN
1 Like
The niistali site is only talking about certain protected areas of the tank like its turret protection which is most likely where that 1000mm figure comes from, that is already in game, go check out the ufp though…
Regardless Gaijin doesn’t model “anti-ERA” APFSDS’s i.e. according to other sources M829A2 should already be going through Kontakt-5, this source likewise states Relikt didn’t seem to affect DM53 or M829A3 much.
According to this source the only ERA that could even stop DM53 was dublet/Nizh via a multi-layered ERA configuration.
In the end however it will probably remain unknown as to how M829A3 and Relikt interact with one another for years if not decades, niistali never had M829A3 to even test against so it is pure speculation on their end, what we do know however is that the west i.e. I know for a fact that the US and UK did test their rounds against T-80Us in the early 90s, although apparently the US even got their hands on a T-72BU (T-90), regardless M829A2 did enter service not long after they tested it against a T-80U.
9 Likes
It’s not a visual bug but a stat error.
While I do respect that the devs are humen and need time, they really should have that dev blog out of the door in the week after christmas (first week of January).
Not saying that it should be fixed by then, although it would be nice, just a blog going over the sources from the report and their own sourcss and saying at the end “we are planning to buff/fix the Abrams by doing X within Y timeframe” would be sufficient for me.
If you are going to rush an update like that you should set a hard timeline for when to expect fixes for said broken update.
Keep in mind that a lot of Gaijin employees seem to celebrate Orthodox Christmas (7th January next year), as well as some who celebrate regular Christmas (25th December). As a result War Thunder development always seems to be quite heavily disrupted between Christmas and mid January.
1 Like
Good and fair point actually.
Than I’m just going to hope for that blog next week, but set my expectations to have that blog at least in January.
Something to note from now on the live server ive been pening the turret cheeks on the abrams alot more with the Type 10 and Ariete did they manage to nerf that or bug it now
You just showed how uneducated you are on this matter
@Vamilad since that thread got locked i guess i will continue with the more appropriate thread:
They didnt, its why T-72/T-90 use the composite of T-72B if im not misstaken. And the Abrams in this threads case uses the armor composition of like a 80s Abrams. Even tho its pretty wellknown that domestic Abrams in the US has DU inserts at the minimun on later variants.
Yes, Gaijin fudges numbers for the sake of gameplay balance.
That’s why they shouldn’t be requiring exact blueprints for the addition of spall liners. Make a cut off at Rank VIII, add every Rank VIII vehicle with spall liners modeled in some form that seems appropriate for the vehicle.
I mean that is a solution, but nlt exactly realistic given that Warthunder in general tries to have some sourcing behind in its game. Some arbitrary cutoff, like the spalling threshold is just not gonna have good outcomes.
They should probably loosen the sourcing requirements for newer vehicles, but idk if they will hop onto the “make up stuff as we go” untill the R-74 (or R74M2) comes along and people realize its kinda shit irl
Both paths have problems. The current path means more unbalanced gameplay now with the promise of possibly balanced gameplay later if Gaijin finds declassified info to add spall liners to vehicles. This also denotes that they will start adding spall liners to vehicles even lower such as the M60 / Leopard 1 which are documented to have spall liners. I don’t know if that’s something people really want to see.
My solution means more balanced gameplay immediately and gives Gaijin freedom to add future vehicles without the same song and dance of “we need documents” that simply do not exist in an unclassified form. If they wish to continue adding future vehicles, which they most clearly due considering how rushed this update was, they are going to have to loosen restrictions to maintain game balance.
Sure, tho still gives the arbitrary cutoff.
Well if they are adding a feature that some vehicles had, they better add it to all of them.
Honestly i just wish they didn’t. Just remove arbitrary spalling cutoffs and don’t add spall liners. Its just a more consistant experience for everyone involved. Which is the big issue of how they are talking about spall liners, its just a nightmare in terms of knowing what damage the shell will do
We’re currently faced with an arbitrary cut off. They haven’t modeled all vehicles known to have spall liners, only Rank VIII tanks to play catch up with their choice to add spall liners to the T90M.
That’s the problem faced with the current path. If you’re gonna do it, you have to do it across the board.
I disagree that spall liners should never be added. I think it’s necessary for the health of the game at top tier, tanks IRL don’t die from one penetrating shot. It should help to prevent “CoD” gameplay which currently dominates due to the ease at which you can kill tanks. Spall liners should slow down gameplay as multiple penetrating shots are required to finish a tank.
Its arbitrary in the sourcing requirement and what vehicles they have bothered to get around to. Its not arbitrary based on whatever rank number the vehicle has.
I think that is a noteworthy difference. It would be like giving the Abrams DU inserts depending on the rank.
You dont have to do it across the board, but you do it bottom up on some old vehicle and not top down.
They kinda do. Any shot that penetrates and that dissables or scares the crew enough is a “kill”
It just makes the engagement inconsistent. You wont know what spalling to expect and where to place the shot untill you have shot at least once on the target.
It will be like 6mm structural steel carousel box catching shrapnel and the tank surviving because 1/15 times my dart is unlucky and passes between 8 shells and does no damage.
Same with the AMX 30, or Leclerc occasionally eating darts frontally. Meanwhile Centurion or Abrams get yeeted, a lot of that being the fact Abrams have no hull armor
1 Like
Spall liners make the spall cone smaller, it doesn’t absorb all penetrating small.
Yes that’s due to the fuel tanks placed frontally. That’s what T-55s have, that’s what T-72s have.