Oh and you seriously think gaijin wouldve made some goodhearted announcement just because?
Correlation is causation here. But clearly, you have missed the Correlation for the last 10 years
Rank 8 APFSDS is a great example
Gaijin just always words their followup posts like it was their decision, with somehow zero external factors. Its called saving face
Right?? How many years and reports later?? And this is ONLY being accepted because Gaijin added russias T90M. If they werent, itd put russia as an equal or in the dog house at anywhere but top tier end line.
And we cant have that can we
Abrams’ turret is also still elevated too high with an exposed turret ring
Has been since inception. Its not even volumetric either
Despite Gaijin already announcing that many Vehicles are going to have spall liners, Then proceeding to name Vehicles out that are going to receive the feature first.
Also talks about how they were testing the Spall Liner on the T-90M and wanted to see how they can make the Spall Liner destructible. Which clearly indicates that the feature was not ready.
Nice to see people reading public statements, Not.
Its the First Dev Server, Grow up you Children.
Lmao. Only after the community out rage. You have your order of events flawed
^^
I believe im done talking here, have fun making what ever stupid projecting, justifications you want to make.
Its sad to see the most incomplete state of a Test server be taken so seriously.
Except the devs were giggling about “how effective” the T90M was and how not even the Leo2A7V could side kill it, because of its glorious spall liners
Then were hit in the bug reports about how NATO tanks dont have spall liners since you cant see them
Holy crap man, come off it already
Don’t forget the F-15 losing its wings when you look at it funny!
T-80BVM has a weak turret, it hiding behind a hill hides no weakspots cause all of its weakspots are on the turret.
Thats not a BVM exclusive. The T72 TURMS can turret cheek pen the M1A1 AIM…Much worse than only the breech on the BVM
Entirely negated by ERA tiles that magically teleport all incoming projectiles into the void.
I’m mainly talking about the LFP armor for the abrams, which is the entire point of the thread.
And I’m sure that the people playing the tanks I mentioned earlier are super happy with all the changes that they made to their vehicles after the first dev server of those updates…oh wait they never really made changes to them.
Don’t you think we could use a little more clarity and consistency about how tech mods and the developers work with sources?
Take the “Stinger incident” for example, and how despite several declassified primary documents indicating it has maneuverability of 20-22g, it is half-heartedly given 13g maneuverability with no explanation as to why.
Do they not trust the sources? Or is it purposefully gimped because of balance reasons? We don’t know, and they won’t tell us.
And you can see how stubborn the tech mods and developers appear to be regarding armor on modern NATO MBTs. They claim they don’t want us to leak classified documents (of course), but on the other hand deny all the secondary and even primary sources we give. Originally the requirement was exact armor values from a primary source. When those are provided (estimates by Russian company) suddenly the goalposts changed apparently, and now it has to be exact armor values from a western primary source… don’t they know those aren’t public?
Simply accepting the Russian estimates would have solved this issue without the risk of encouraging more leaks. IIRC one of the western sources that only gave armor improvement in percentages matched up well with those estimates.
Also, look back at this statement from a few years ago. How well do these words hold up now? (Thanks to @Thug Shaker Actual for bringing it up)
Cause all ya’ll did a tantrum when it was obvious to be coming to multiple tanks.
Also BVM weakspot coverage is identical to M1A1 HC’s turret weakspot coverage.
@Count_Trackula
ERA coverage is ~35% of the front of the turret. Just don’t shoot that 35%…
lol
Sure.
ERA covering nearly all of turret visible from this angle
“iT’s OnLy 35 PeRcEnT!”
If it looks at you, its got plenty of ERA coverage.
Oh look, you’re peddling Russian tank propaganda now.
That’s not a front aspect shot and you know it.
It’s got ERA on the other side too, you git.
And the side armor is weaker so just hit the hull instead, most maps are CQC where Russian tanks are less effective anyway.
Your attempt to move the goalpost was thwarted.
Just tell us youre not trying to balance by realism.
Thats all you need.
You mean the hull that is hulldown in this situation? Goalpost not moved at all.
lol. When it looks at you, way more than 35% of what is visible of the turret is covered by ERA.