Mutt bros we arent looking too good
2 Likes
Learn english before commenting.
1 Like
FYI, the Max guy is a pro-russian troll. Don’t feed.
3 Likes
Fire extinguisher not researched
US players make up a dominant portion of the player base and is one of the most played nations. The US does not get special treatment simply because Gaijin responds to an uproar from a large portion of the player base. If Italy or Israel were played more and its players could organize to protest the bad situation some of their vehicles are in, then I am sure Gaijin would make adjustments.
What more can you possibly want for the Leo 2A7? And this is patently untrue- they literally added spall liners for Leopards after German players complained.
The IPM1 and M1A1 received all those buffs and was immediately moved up in BR. Furthermore, it’s not like most of those buffs (reload excepted) were made out of the ether. Most of those required extensive source material to back up the bug reports.
2 Likes
Ah yes, the big bad Germans were the only ones to “complain”, not like each & every community made bug reports in regards to this, however only a few to their desired effect (because unlike a certain group of the people, they actually had proper evidence that wasn’t grasping at straws).
Aside from that, I dunno…
- fixing the armour values
- fixing the armour holes
- fixing the 3D & damage model
- fixing acceleration
All of those are well documented (well, apart from the last one) and have been reported already, they are actual issues that plague the vehicle.
2 Likes
As I recall, the British, Americans, and Israelis also complained that their tanks did not get full spall liners. I’m pretty sure they didn’t get them.
Furthermore, I wasn’t even complaining about Germany. I am complaining about preferential treatment for Russia.
1 Like
Challengers received spall liners (partly, because of lacking evidence for hull liners that was however later provided). US is the “group of people” I’m talking about there, every piece of information collected on the issue was borderline a strawman, going as far as inventing ways of how a spall-liner could work if it was placed inside the armour itself (…), and when asked about photo evidence, no one was able to come up with it (on the contrary, photo evidence actually showed no spall liners on the inside of the vehicle) + actual crewmen commented that the Abrams doesn’t have them, and that they wear protective clothing instead.
Not too familiar with Merkava’s case though so I won’t comment.
1 Like
Hence why US mains have no valid reason to complain about the US tech tree being treated unfairly compared to others.
The Leopard 2 A7V has a whole host of issues, many of which were shoved aside in the poorly reasoned dev blog dedicated to it.
The difference with regards to the M1’s is that it’s fanbase will claim the M1 is underperforming based on either no evidence whatsoever, false interpretation of evidence or flat out lying.
It was not, these two vehicles were allowed nearly 80% winrates for many months in a row.
These two vehicles are still among the strongest high tier MBT’s relative to their BR in the entire game, and the M1A1 was already monstrously powerful before it also received that reload buff.
Yet bug reports for other nations don’t seem to result in the desired fixes/buffs at nearly the same rate.
1 Like
Nah they know those tanks are wrong about spall liner they just don’t want to give them
2 Likes
Germany and Russia are already in a good position, I don’t think that the fact that the Leopards could be modeled better when German and Swedish teams already dominate the game is detrimental to my argument that Gaijin does not make beneficent assumptions for US vehicles (which is performing poorly) in the same way it does with Russia (which is performing well).
How so?
Prove it. I have never seen win rates that high for any US lineup.
Yes. Because when you have 300+ people bug reporting the same issue instead of 3, Gaijin is more likely to address the issue.
1 Like
Yes they are, but the US mains claiming Gaijin is intentionally gimping the M1’s are acting as though the M1’s only competition is the Leopard 2 A7V, and that 7-8 other nations aren’t worse off than the US is.
Here’s some of the claims I’ve come across and seen getting wild approval:
- M1A1 and onwards should have massively better armor because the M1E1 had weight sims on it.
- M1’s should have 51mm UFP instead of 38mm.
- M1’s should have spall liners.
- M1’s LFP should have DU armor.
All of these claims are easily debunked by referencing U.S. primary source documents.
Sure:
Spoiler
1 Like
Important thing to note was that UFP change was intended as a buff to Russian ERA, however it also inadvertantly was a buff to the Abrams UFP. That and I’m pretty sure anything that has more than around 350mm of 60° penetration still retains enough energy to do decent amount of damage after ricochet.
Here’s a shell with 802mm of LoS penetration failing to deal consistent damage even at point blank range:
I think the agenda a lot of US players have becomes evident when they are very picky as to which parts of the M1 they want ‘‘fixed’’.
They’ll make wild claims about spall liners inside the armor and DU in almost every M1A1 (and onwards) LFP, but when the overperformance of the UFP is pointed out, suddenly they’re fine with it as it is.
2 Likes
I mean unless you have video of the actual Swedish trials computer simulations specifically showing the required long-rod length for the rounds not to straight up shatter, Gaijin ain’t changing it.
Again the current UFP performance is mostly a side-effect of this:
Destabilization of the APFSDS round has been added after impacting side modules of the heavy ERA (Kontakt 5, Relikt). Destabilization of the round significantly improves armour durability against hit effect at course angles ± 20…25 degrees.
from Update Direct Hit. Implemented to model the effect of Precession.
I obviously can’t blame Gaijin for simplifying mechanics, as the server dying every time a shot is fired because it attempts complex industry-level simulations wouldn’t be ideal either.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the UFP is overperforming and that many people are okay with that, whilst they aren’t okay with other issues they deem detrimental instead of beneficial to the M1.
1 Like
Then find some primary & secondary sources Gaijin’ll accept and bug report the overperforming UFP.
The UFP was literally made to shatter APFSDS rounds…there isn’t one that is going to overcome an 80°+ angle.
The best part is that all Abrams variants are SIGNIFICANTLY underperforming in the UFP area, as they should have an additional plate below the main one for a total of ~63 mm thickness.
1 Like
The UFP was designed with the Soviet 115mm in mind, with shortrod penetrators such as XM578E1 acting as simulants.
Obviously, XM578E1 with it’s low L/D ratio isn’t anywhere near the performance of shells such as 3BM-42, 3BM-60, DM33, DM53, etc.
Complex simulations show otherwise.
Source?
2 Likes
Regarding the 63 mm thickness on the UFP I think he is referring to these two bug reports. (All M1) Wrong UFP/Shatter plate thickness // Gaijin.net // Issues
Abrams (All) incorrect fuel cell bulkhead thickness and model // Gaijin.net // Issues
Basically, where the fuel tanks are there is an extra plate of armor (25mm) on the UFP that is not modeled in the game.
2 Likes