NO at the moment.
ah
But perhaps a second DEV server will start soon ™.
it’s over for us nato mains, they just nerfed leo2a7 ufp again despite approving our report previously (now it’s inferior to strv122 by around 50mm KE)
1 Like
we can at least ping Smin later today to see if het can give a status update.
And maybe also ask if the devs are working on preventing the imbalance between the upcoming good MBTs like the 2A7V/T-90M/Strv 122B+ and the worse additions like the SEPv2 and Challenger 3.
Been enjoying Classic SoD, so I’m checkin in…
And it looks like I’m gonna have to spin up ASA once they get multiplayer working after SoD is done.
Russia doesn’t have a round that can point click an Abrams or Challenger if they get updated armor…therefore updating the armor from 1985 is against the rules. We are apparently just too stubborn to accept it.
Imagine being a Z and looking at WT forums… (Can’t update Abrams armor from 1985 because it would be proof against your current best ammunition…while they’re not allowed to have anything after 1993 because it would be proof against your armor.)
2 Likes
Why not just shoot at weak points, such as turret rings, as we usually do?The weak spot on the west side is much larger and easier to target than that of the BVM.
Unfortunately they don’t view ODIN as a reliable source. This was Bowie’s reply to me asking about it around a year ago.
I do… because I have to. Because my Ammo is from 1993 and their tank is from 2018.
But hunting a turret ring at 300-500m is one thing.
Trying to get that turret ring at 1500 meters???
American users are already doing it. And it’s aimed at the driver hatch, which is smaller than the Abrams. The US military can do it and the Russian military cannot? That excuse won’t work. Just one word to add: skill issues.
5 Likes
Well, the SUB-1536 license that was cited as proof of DU in turrets was amended to remove the 5 hull limit and say that turrets and hulls are authorized in the capacity for unlimited DU use. If the SUB-1536 is proof that it was in turrets, its now proof that its in hulls as well.
1 Like
For reference, here is a demonstration of the range of penetration possible on the Russian side if Abrams were to acquire armour. The second one, on the other hand, is the penetrable range currently targeted by western tanks.
7 Likes
Hopefully they accept it then. It has been a little over a year, maybe they’ll have a change of heart lol. I personally think it’s a reliable source, but I have seen them deny it on the basis it’s a 3rd party hosted on a .mil or whatever the excuse was.
Yup, the BVMs/T-90s/72B3s get to hide their hull weakspot behind hills.
But at last the Abrams would have to be aimed at instead of point-clicked. Which is how I know this is very unlikely to happen.
Its actually a .gov. I’ve been tempted to call the number in the office to talk to Karen at the number listed. Who knows if the number is the same, if that office still exists, if Karen is still alive, or if I would be violating federal law by trying to get information from her. XD
4 Likes
Oh sorry, I thought you were serious about that until now. I’m not fluent in English, so I didn’t get the joke.In fact, 3BM59 should be added to Russian tanks. There is no evidence for this, but it should probably have a penetration of 600 mm or more.I don’t know how much armour Gaijin will give Abrams, but I think they’ll allow penetration at close range.
I think people already did the calculations for 3BM59 and it wouldn’t make a difference compared to 3BM60. 3BM59 is similar to M829A1.
2 Likes
Ah, yes. I didn’t know that. Well, it still makes no difference that it is a much easier job than destroying BVMs with Abrams.
Worst case, the FBI and ATF surround your house and ram a Bradley through your front door Lmao
3 Likes