The problem here is, it is likely the devs know this, but they aren’t honest with the players. What evidence the public can see, has shown that even the very aged Ukraine tanks from the USSR days are defeating the most modern russian tanks. Without this the public could have still claimed some ignorance and the devs were safe. But at this point, the knowledge the public does have, have just exacerbated the lies and performance exaggerations. Which is why I really like the question “Is it incompetence, bias, or intentional deception”. Are they too proud to admit the truth? Or were the lies just exposed through the war in Ukraine and they can’t claim ignorance anymore?
Either way, their are enough posts with real data on these forums and years of bug reports that it should have been fixed by now. So you can only assume its intentional overperformance at this point.
The devs don’t know this in a provable manner.
Meaning they either flat out don’t know it, or they don’t have unrestricted & unclassified data to prove it in a court of law.
And I’m not talking Russia suing them, Russia has no power in the EU & they haven’t sued devs before.
I’m talking USA, France, UK, etc suing based on a wiff of restricted data used to a decision made.
As for Russian tanks being defeated, we’ve seen no evidence of a Russian tank being defeated with a sole round through Relikt + armor.
Here is the problem with that statement. The devs are often using numbers that are not provable anyways. So to say they don’t know something in a provable manner so they will just use their own made up numbers is silly.
Here is one of the glaring problems with the devs. They use made up numbers or calculators which are wrong. And instead of going “well we got it wrong so lets reduce it” they want multiple documents that prove they were wrong.
If they were honest, what they would do is say “ok, we got it wrong on our initial calculations, lets reduce it to fix this, even though we don’t have exact evidence, we know its off so we will make some kind of correction”.
You have seen no evidence. You can’t say “we”. You have no idea what I have seen, and I can promise you I know more about ballistics and have seen more live fire and armor tests out of laboratories than anyone on the war thunder dev team. So when someone like me comes along and says they got it wrong. The honest thing to do would be to say “ok, how can we make this closer to reality” not to continue using your magic fake numbers. I can also probably say I am not the only one lurking around here that has seen data that clearly refutes war thunders propaganda performance.
I will say, until we start seeing a bit more honesty out of their vehicle performance, I can’t consider it to be anything more than willful dishonest propaganda. How many different ways about it do people have to provide actual numbers. And real data, for years and years they have been provided better data than their secret numbers and they still refuse to fix it.
Your opinions are valuable, but testimony can’t prove anything.
And I imagine your frustration in knowing something to be true but unable to provide a proof for it.
That’s me with a number of things.
These requirements are there for their protection from all countries.
They’re not doing it cause of malice or ignorance.
They’re doing what is provable.
2S38 IRL has a full-ammo carousel with no 2nd stage. The proof is in the Russian archives, yet in-game it’s treated like a 9040.
Type 10 has armor that can withstand its own ammunition, that’s all we know that’s provable. What we don’t know is entire composite coverage.
As for honesty, we know for a fact every T-72A is accurate.
We know T-72B 1989 & T-90A are accurate.
We know T-80B is accurate.
We suspect T-80U is accurate.
All the sus stuff is around T-72B 1985, and Relikt [T-80BVM’s first line of defense].
What we don’t have is perforation simulation, and if we did then T-90A would be perforated from over 1500 meters using M829A2 in-game on top of being fully penetrated <700 meters.
However, we only have penetration simulation currently, which leads to bounced rounds at that range.
Holy moly, I just realized something… T-90’s “constructional slope” is wrong. It’s supposed to say 67 degrees.
It’s only 68 degrees if you line up with the gun, which is angled down 1 degree due to turret ring angle.
I did ask Smin about the “wet storage” for the T-80BVM, and I got a “I don’t have the sources used, but if you can find something contradictory, submit a bug report”
would be kinda good if they actually shared the sources they used for these vehicles. So that they could be verified by the community. Its incredibly hard to prove a negative, especially from such a secretive country like Russia.
But yeah, a lot of game mechanics are “missing” that seem to have an assymetrical impact currently on the game currently. Its starting to get very annoying the “game limiation” excuse.
None of the russian tanks are accurate. Not the 72, 80, 90 etc. They have turned off spalling for them. In some cases, as stated by others. Sometimes for reasons that don’t even relate to that model of russian vehicle. russian vehicles are given special codes no one else does that boost their performance.
But more so it doesn’t even matter because actual hard evidence has been presented for incorrect performance and they still don’t fix it.
Are we also going to ignore that in the past they have been caught cheating/lieing to the public, like extra armor plates that were hidden in russian tanks?
This is how they cheat gamers by forcing you to prove a negative. Like my comment before about how they use magical made up numbers. They have been provided things like the actual gun performance of the 279 and yet its gun is still over performing.
I mean the mystical over performance and lack of spalling has been pointed out for years and it gets conveniently neglected. At this point you have to assume its intentional to give one side an unfair advantage or they would have fixed it years ago.
Yeah, there is a bug report for the Skyflash monopulse seeker. it got closed as a “duplicate” bug report for a completely un-related issue. With that addition, the Torando F3 would be effective at lower alt, where jets like the Mig-29 like to hide. It would give the Skyflash a clear advantage over the R-27ER. Same bug/missing feature affects the 7F too.
Just a little suspicious if you ask me.
Gaijin biggest fault in my opinion is a lack of communication/clarity. too many changes are never mentioned and we are left to datamine the changes. and things like sources for tanks should just be shared wherever possible
I dont think so. if Skyflash had them, then it would work pretty well until sub 100ft. They do wierd things even as high as 300ft. I think only Soviet missiles never had monopulse seekers and so that would be a clear disadvantage for them
@AlvisWisla As for other testing, how about this. 0 out of 12 detonations for russian vehicles. 12 out of 12 detonations for other nations. Here is a test that clearly shows they have gone above and beyond for russia.
"After completing 36 tests with tanks with same ammo separate shell loading system (Challenger 2 Black Night, T80BVM, T73B3) we found out bunch of interesting facts. All test were performed in shooting range game mode penetrating all three mbt’s side hull armor with VCC60 (249mm APDS penetration) and VCC30 (116mm APDS penetration).
T80BVM.
Penetrating T80BVM hull side armor using VCC30 (116mm APDS penetration) and VCC60 (249mm APDS penetration) we got 0 out of 12 one shot kills hitting T80BVM ammunition, even though one or few shells of T80BVM were destroyed completely by VCC60-30 APDS round(s) without any explosion.
T72B3.
Penetrating T72B3 hull side armor using VCC30 (116mm APDS penetration) we got 2 out of 6 one shot kills hitting T72B3 ammunition, again one or few shells of T72B3 were destroyed completely by VCC60-30 APDS round(s) without any explosion.
Penetrating T72B3 hull side armor using VCC60 (249mm APDS penetration) we got 4 out of 6 one shot kills hitting T72B3 ammunition.
Challenger 2 Black Night.
Penetrating Challenger 2 Black Night hull side armor using VCC60 and VCC30 we got 12 out of 12 one shot kills hitting its ammunition.
Conclusion.
We see that 2 soviet tanks (T80BVM and T72B3) are surviving much more penetrations directly into their ammunition than Challenger tank (which has same separate shell loading system and wet ammo rack which soviet tanks do not have). According to knowledge we have, soviet ammunition (ammo rack) is the most dangerous and explosive out of all modern mbt’s we have in our game. Looks pretty strange that T80BVM and T72B3 are not exploding after any ammunition penetration (every time).
Thank you so much for your attention and development of our favorite game, all the best! We are ready to test any other weapons and reaction of soviet ammo rack if there will be a need.
so from looking at protection analysis rounds seem to shatter on the internal plate leaving spall to do all the damage to ammo on t80 and for some reason only hitting one thing of powder never sets off ammo
This one is fun. This is thanks to the actual code benefits of russia. I pulled the numbers the other day, but 91% of all russian vehicles are set to only detonate ammo 15% of the time. They have some vehicles that are also set to 8% and I think I found 3 or 4 that were set to detonate 0% of the time.
When I say I pulled the numbers. I took the actual game code and went one by one and looked at each vehicle.
According to the devs, in some instances it puts russia at 0% chance. They applied this by the way to the T72, T80, T90 etc. Even though they are in a carousel and obviously not wet storage. Then told the user to “prove us wrong”. Well the problem is, their is no documentation for wet storage in that instance because, wet storage in that instance doesn’t exist. So you are being forced to prove a negative wrong that isn’t in documentation because it doesn’t exist.
This was abyss by the way that stated it. They are very wrong, but you can imagine how likely to fix or admit that they are.