why is it missing R-77?
It is a great tank, but the glaring inaccuracy portrayed in-game makes it a lot less than what it actually is. The main reason I drive this point home so much is to not normalize choosing one nation’s tanks over another.
then the challenger 2E should have 4 second reload
it is just a challenger 2 with the mobility to keep up with Leo2s but is 12.7
the Abrams shouldnt have a 5 second reload and that is just my opinon as they were already better then the other tanks with 5 second reloads
hell the only ones that dont have auto loaders that i think should be 5 seconds are the challengers and Ariettes to make up for their awful flaws (and the Merkavas if they dont fix their armour)
even with all its inaccuracies its pure meta. its literally chinas best tank stat wise, that should say something. i think a lot of the loud majority comes from the fact that for most us mains its usually their first top tier experience
1 Like
aim just to the right of the gun and you one shot it every time due to no blow out pannels, and no spall liner
and every tank at top tier can front pen the hull of a challenger 2 lmao
It was just yesterday, I swear…
1 Like
ok tbf it cant get front penned by 30mm bmpt gun as easy, shooting turret ring of abrams with apds is so funny
The one thing I’ll say is USUALLY, when a new variant get introduced to a tree, not everything but some major bug reports get actioned upon. Like you say I’ll take what I can get, but man it’d be nice to see the accepted reports be implemented. I’d give back the five second reload in a heartbeat for changes and a clean Abrams lol
1 Like
na it can ive been killed in the challenger 2 so many times by the 30mm from the front its dumb
Dont worry, theres almost no chance A3 is modeled correctly
And it got fixed already by a player (literally just a single value has to be changed in the code), so they would just have to go there, change the number, save the file → wait for the next deployment window. A thing of not even a minute as the place and value are already known…
1 Like
1985 SAC
Standard Aircraft Characteristics
@Nostalgistic put it in his suggestion for it
And I know for a fact he isn’t stupid
While it never carried it in service, it suggests it was fully capable of doing so
3 Likes
Suffren could have come with California and the russian thing i can’t remember the name of
Assuming Japan, UK, Germany and Italy got something too
2 Likes
UK could have had a Type 21, Type 22 or Type 42
depending on if they want to add a frigate or destroyer
A lot of it is the inability to return fire, and the mis-representation of what makes the Abrams deadly
1 Like
conveniently ignored what i had sent again
I believe they’re storing regen steering only due to the fact it could potentially be detrimental to CQBs mobility.
And since the playerbase—somehow—likes CQB at high/top tier, adding it would spark a whole painting palette of complaints.
The Challenger 2s have a wierd hole/bug in their armour where HE autocanon rounds will just overpressure and kill crew
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oUKPJBBvm1pq
1 Like
“Planned”
Just like the IRST on the Yak-141.
Some aircraft can get their planned equipment but why can’t some others?
4 Likes