If russian source that quotes relikt protecting from m829a3 is wrong than why is this one better?
I don’t believe you 😞
Because the russians use LOS, NOT flat pen equivalent, which is why now 11 t series tanks including the t90 have 100mm more armor than they should.
8 Likes
A nation like Russia will always try to make their own stuff seem very strong on paper, you need that if you want to threaten everyone around you.
Luckily no one at Gaijin cares what some random little russian main at the forum thinks. They see the bug report thwy have gotten and will decide for themselfs what they want to do with the SEPv2.
Yes yes… This one is good this one is bad… A bunch of weasels 😂
You need all your luck with source reporting like this
My man 2.5k photos of destroyed equippment from the soviet era and modern production from conflicts that are happening around the world (one of which is in the EU continent) check out Oryx who counts loosses :) some of those photos are used in analysis by people who know more then we all here together and they say what happened and how some “facts” that you provided are absolutley false…
You can even use google to search for those photos/sites which do A DETAILED ANALYSIS and show how most of the stuff that companies state specially from the russian side were false and how much bs some of them provided…
1 Like
He is just here to derail. He is a little russia fanboy.
Wo der if we could ask a mod to send him to the shadow realm. Or we just flag him their ourselfs.
8 Likes
Unless this is some visual bug but somehow with the recent hotfix update they bugged the sepv2s armor it lost 88RHA armor on the side turret compared to SEPv1 lol.
2 Likes
remember to buy the premium
1 Like
Now we can’t even joke about SEP being same exact protection, it’s somehow worse
5 Likes
Expecting A3 at current BRs wasn’t going to happen.
As for armor, that bug report is MASSIVE and will take a while.
Spall liner was reported later as well.
T-90M has Strv 122 level armor.
Classic snail moment
What is the point of rank 8 (besides being a money grab) if they won’t raise the br cap
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.