I am just not giving them a money nor playing their game. It’s tiring, I don’t want to play only Russia to enjoy Ground RB and Air RB is also garbage so they leave me no choice.
4 Likes
I’m not playing until they fix things and follow their own standards. Since when did a supposed prototype status ever stop them from implementing a feature?
Then when they provide outdated and inaccurate information to deny reality supported by documented facts is completely unacceptable. Their devs need to be replaced if they are the reason for refusing accurate representation of equipment in game. They aren’t doing what their supposed policy is or what the game is claimed to be at this point.
2 Likes
There is no nation bias nor double standards.
T-90M having T-72B 1984 hull armor and T-90A 2004 turret composite isn’t a double standard.
@SXTREME
The best tech trees aren’t Russian though, and never have been.
2 Likes
You think why this entire incident and topic happen in the first place? think!! man thinks!!
you know what F it keeps your thought as you see fit, but the truth is the truth you alone can’t change how these lot of people think, and you can’t stop what gonna happen next feel free to try i won’t stop you but i suggest that don’t wasting time try to change people thought you’ll get nothing from it.
1 Like
I think that Gaijin is concerned that if they accidentally change something based on bunk information that they’ll receive backlash from tech tree mains elsewhere.
Status-quo is safer than change based on potentially incorrect information.
Like now that I think about it, ~550KE protection is more likely for upgrades to hull armor.
There could be more, there could be less. The void in the array structure could’ve changed.
I do know what you mean though about changing minds.
I respond more to practice my critical thinking than anything else.
If someone walks up to me and says “American bias” I can point them to Sweden ground & French air.
This is irrelevant. Mistral can hit 25 to 32G with the same control layout as a rolling airframe missile. RIM-116 boasts a near 100% intercept rate with the same rolling airframe layout. Using modern control methods, these missiles can easily hit their stated G limits.
The primary reasons for the poor performance of SA-14 (the prime offender for poor small IR SAM performance) is due to bang-bang control method and low RPM in flight.
Last quote I saw was ~10 RPM in flight for SA-14, while Mistral, FIM-92 and Type 91 (as it actually is a completely different weapon to FIM-92) rotate at minimum 2 to 4 times faster. Faster rotation means more time spent in-plane with the intended vector.
Bang-Bang control method wastes energy on maximum deflection of the control surfaces. Constant overcorrection due to lag and aerodynamic forces. Moreover, SA-14 spends 5/6ths of every rotation waiting to be in-line with the flight vector. Correct proportional control means rotations aren’t wasted on waiting for the perfect instant for max control surface deflection. More of every rotation can be used correcting the flight path with partial control inputs.
Not only are these modern rolling airframe missiles rotating faster, giving them more time with control surface in-line with flight vector, but they also use more of every rotation to correct their flight path.
Completely different weapons. SA-14 performance is not relevant to stated performance of Mistral, FIM-92 and Type 91.
4 Likes
Which they do in WT.
Statcard G-limit isn’t peak Gs it’s average Gs.
The 20g figure for Stinger comes from an RAF manual telling pilots how to avoid the thing if it is coming for you. It is quite obvious that 20g is the “average” overload (or whatever you want to call it) for multiple reasons:
- A pilot does not care what the missile can pull for a fraction of a second, they care how many g it can sustain while it is chasing them down. So giving the peak g would be completely pointless for such a manual.
- The manual states that the stinger can hit a 7g
maneuvering target flying at up to 600 kts. You are not doing that reliably with just 13G of overload (a missile needs 2.5x - 3.0x the maximum g of the target in order to hit it - meaning the stinger would need 18-21g to match that claim). - The manual describes how to defeat various non-rolling missiles in the 10 to 15g overload range. For all of those it says that aircraft manoeuvring can be used to defeat the missile. For Stinger it says that they missile is exceptionally hard to defeat and that pre-flaring is all but essential if you wish to avoid it. That would strongly suggest that the stinger is more maneuverable than 15 g (or else the manual would say it can be defeated by maneuvering, like it says for the other missiles).
11 Likes
Ok lads, genuine qwuestion. Do you think reload buff helped a bit? I finished gridning for first sep to finally finish it after looong time of not even touching ground RB and it was PAIN AF. The abrams feels like trash compared to what it was what, 1 year ago? Like, if i can get it to flank position, the reload is nuts but othervise? Its crew can be oneshotted through front wheel while going around corner, WTF is this BS. Fuel tanks in it were IRL proven to pretty much soak up all damage and residue would be stopped by turret basket if there was anything left.
Ammo is atrocious considering what it faces. There are barely any tanks you can lolpen almost everywhere. Pretty much only major nations are played now and you HAVE to aim for weakspots on STRVs, 2A7s or T series tanks even though it should be able to lolpen UFP of all K5 equiped tanks up to approx 1500 meters. And they can shoot everywhere exept cheek instakilling you or crippling you to the point you cant shoot back anyway.
I think M829A3 buffed to lolpen everything else should be introduced to it. If they can shoot wherever they want exept cheeks, so should abrams (btw, leclerc and possibly type10 should get round like that also considering they are absurd papers aswell). And it should be introduced to M1A2 and both seps… HCs and M1A1 should receive M829A2 with according performance to go through K5 equiped Ts to 1500 meters.
2 Likes
So the SEPv3 will be the exact same problem then.
Stinger rotates, and only during one part of its rotation it can pull 20 - 22Gs.
You and I both know this is incorrect, you have already gone through all this with Flame2512.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/2/d/2deac1c31520ebdc0e711b78b52e6c13426b2b22.png
12 Likes
Something I found which can be added to the list for a new bug report:
Some Abrams Hull Armour reports on upgrades. (Source from where the pictures are in the comments from OP)
M1A2 Sep Armour Justification WITH DECLASSIFIED RECEIPTS (wtf am I doing with my life)
It helped a little bit, but not much. My winrates are still tanking hard, US teams are still losing ridiculous amounts and the 2A7V and 122B+ are still miles better than the SEPv2.
EDIT: it is a good change, don’t get me wrong, but it is only a half of the change that is needed to make the SEPv2 worth playing over the SEPv1.
Negative on this. M829A3 should be introduced with the calculated pen and maybe with an effectiveness against K5 and somewhat againt relikt.
There is no need to unnecissarily powercreep minor nations even further.
Besides that they should make TUSK II a mod, being able to take it off would make the SEPv2 so much more effective.
1 Like
Iirc some of those were already in the bug report by Kenny and got denied because “there is no proof they were ever applied to production vehicles”.
13 != 20 or 22
This is simple logic, 13 is not equal to 20. 16 is not equal to 30. IR rolling airframe SAMs do not hit their stated G limits in-game.
I’ve already explained how gaijin’s “explanation” for the nerfed performance is irrelevant to these missiles, please actually read next time before replying.
3 Likes
Something something “there is no proof thermal viewers were ever applied to production T-80Bs”
The same argument can be made for a myriad of other Russian equipment that got their components added.
Its gaijin just gaslighting it’s own community, get used to the west having to live with a double standard, because that is the standard now.
7 Likes
No one is gaslighting you.
There are no double standards either.
T-80B has a drop-in thermal observation device because it got them IRL.
T-80U has a drop-in thermal observation device because it got them IRL.
Just as if and Dardo got their drop-in CITV it’d have it in War Thunder as well.
Armor uses a different ruleset.
You listed no double standards.
Please provide the budget forms, official upgrade proposals, and import licenses of the thermals for all tank models and the years they were retrofitted. Thanks.
15 Likes
You really want any tank in this game to get 850+MM of pen?
846mm is the number needed to get through the BVMs UFP.
All top tier shells are artificially nerfed. If you give real raw pen values, then Svinets is at 740+. DM53 would be 800+. M829A3 would be 900+.
To keep the game balanced, you would see T14 in a hurry with Vacuum 1/2 and 1000-1100mm of pen. Most tanks outside of literally the latest gen would be useless in top tier games. All nations would suffer from that. But balance is clearly not what you want. You want your nation to be vastly superior to all others. Far moreso than USSRs TT ever was. Why would anyone want to play the game unless playing US?
US’ problems in WT revolve far more around terrible players than weak tanks.