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.
Link for a video of tests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt8ov7QgxDY" - MMDCCXLVII
With a video for evidence. It is time the devs were a little more honest and realistic.
15 Likes
Yeah, sounds about right. I’ve seen plenty of T-80s and stuff shrug off hits that should have been deadly
2 Likes
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
2 Likes
I have this gem as well
Not a T series tank, but defiently a soviet tank
2 Likes
well its not a bmp idk what the problem is it shouldn’t have killed
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.
12 Likes
how does the wet ammo storage play into detonation chance? might that modifier maybe wrongly added into the carousel?
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.
8 Likes
Yeah, what I think is worse than all that…
None of that surprises me anymore
i suspect the infamous wet storage bug report was a language barrier problem because the guy isnt native english speaker and thought the actual wet storage was meaned when asked for detonation not the carousel
1 Like
Its an honesty and integrity barrier. That is the reality.
However, it shouldn’t matter. They use diesel fuel in some instances which means HEATFS and other round should still set it off. Diesel fuel, while being hard to ignite, isn’t ignition proof. And many rounds are plenty hot enough to set it off.
Its more just a pride and integrity issue.
3 Likes
Spalling is active on all tanks, including T-series tanks.
“Russian” vehicles use the same codebase as all other tanks. Datamines proved this.
Gaijin didn’t "cheat’ or “lie”, once again datamines disprove your claims.
@Morvran
Game limitation is not an excuse, it’s a reason.
Which is why they are DEVELOPING game features.
Aim-9Ls were impossible at some point due to game engine limitations, which is why they updated the game engine to allow for it. Radars were a game engine limitation at one point as well.
Whether Dagor 7 is needed, or minor additions, they work on it.
@DocUSMC
That video is 9 months prior, and that is IFV ammunition.
I’ll gladly re-run tests, but I need to unlock darts on all my IFVs first, so you’ll have to be patient in that regard.
This is a reminder that other nations also have a 15% ammo det rate based on per-fragment basis.
Ammo not detonating doesn’t mean it’s 0%.
Same.
A reason they give every chance they get
Tornado IDS low CM count - Game limitation
Chally 2 low mobility - Game limitation
Unkillable T-80s - Game Limitation
IR seekers not working right vs flares- game limitation
Just… its all a bit… suspicious.
- Which nation would be most affected by perforation being added?
- which nation would be least affected by regenatitive braking being added?
- What nation would be least affected by seperate CM counts?
- Which nation would benefit the least from improved IR seekers vs flares?
- would be Soviets
- would be Soviets
- Would probably be Soviets
- Would probably be Soviets
6 Likes
Myth, fiction, not reality.
They’re as ammo-rackable as Arietes.
No one ever said this.
Literally. Separate flare & chaff, as well as regenerative steering are game level items, not vehicle level.
All of them, equally.
No one. It’s in development.
Soviets would be least negatively affected. They’d see no reduction in flares while many “western” aircraft would.
Right now? No one.
BTW…
How do I put things in spoilers?
Missing direct fire mode for Hellfires and Pars 3, missing proxy variants for apwks and hellfires etc etc
3 Likes
chat box top right the option wheel hide details
It is when they arbitrarily decide not to follow established precedents; e.g. Axial tandem warhead designs get a bonus to their penetration values as a work around for not being able to module sequential detonation of the precursor and main charges. Where the TOW-2B doesn’t even though it uses a twin charge warhead, though offset as to permit ERA Defeat / Bypass.
and the shift to a entirely novel Explosively Formed Penetrator Damage Model coupled with a significant penetration reduction really reminds me of when they gutted HESH the same update they added the IS-6, let alone the hidden 200mm breach plate.
4 Likes
A myth i’ve seen with my own eyes. But by your own admission it would make T-80s more killable
IR seekers always go for flares. They shouldnt. This is either a game limitaiton or they are intentionally nerfing missiles. 9Ls have been proven to ignore flares when a target is on reheat
But soviets have the only IRCCM missiles in game currently.
But they have Assymetrical affects. Heavy tanks would be most affected by regenerative steering/braking. Soviet tanks are almost always the lightest
No, many would see an major increase. Currently Tornado IDS has 56 CMs, should be 1256
Cog top right
1 Like
Oh yeah, Skyflash has about 3 or 4 pending bug reports that are all “game limitations”
2 Likes