Oh for crying out loud, now what, we’re gonna see a Su-57 which is actually stealthy?
Without trying to endlessly whinge on, WHAT WERE THE DEVS DOING???
They found time to make a T-90M model, but didn’t find time to get a aircraft that allows Sweden or Britain to compete? what even is going on???
maybe it almost time for rounds two of disaster.
and if players gonna hate Russian in this game they shouldn’t wonder why
And then they wonder why people get so furious and demand outrageously broken weapons
Funnily enough, it’s not very fun getting smacked by a weapon you have no counter to.
If they dare to add T-90M and just give German Leo 2 PSO then ofc nobody gonna happy about it except Russians main that enjoy easy braindead gameplay maybe? they might get Steam disaster again (which if they did, they deserve it)
Last thing we need is Russian bias, UFO Russian tanks
I guess it isn’t enough for Russians to hate them in real life, they want us to hate them in video games too.
could you give us a link to that please?
Bruh, Soviet Top-Tier MBTs arent broken. They arent even better than their counterparts, except one 80BVM. Its not the tanks, who are broken. Its line-ups. Sovs have well-stacked line-up for top tier with good and decent tanks, good AA and really good CAS (which is kinda better than US ones, cause Mavericks are kinda worse than manually aiming rockets.)
From post pen damage model to the armour protection that they have, they are broken.
T-80U upper plate should only offer 506mm KE vs APFSDS because that’s when apfsds defeats 236mm at 68 degrees - 630mm LOS, instead you need 640mm at 0 degrees with apfsds to penetrate making it immune to DM53 and M829A2 at point blank range which is BS. 640 / 506 = 1.265
T-80U’s hull armour is literally over performing by 26.5%…
That’s like taking the Leopard 2A5 hull of 450mm KE and giving it 570mm KE hull protection instead
That’s how HUGE 26.5% difference is…
It would also be like if gaijin made M1 Abram from 1980, frontally immune to penetrations from 3BM42 rounds.
Your calculations were proven wrong.
But even if they are right (which is not the case) i dont see how its broken in game balance? You cant pen T-80U on its BR opponents? You can. And you have quite enough spots for it. Additionaly, most others MBT have better reload, better gun handling, better gun depression and better mobility. So better anyway better armor compensates by other things in terms of game balance
LOL, it wasn’t proven wrong whatsoever
We all know there’s a huge bloody issue when 3BM-46 APFSDS can’t penetrate T-80U hull even when there is no Kontakt-5 ERA.
But thats simply untrue
Seeing Stona joking about Russian bias despite only recently increasing it further is absolutely disgusting. Guess I’m not buying anything related to this update.
But it is true….
According to gaijins implemented values that they published here
T-80U hull without Kontakt-5 ERA offers 520mm KE vs apfsds.
3BM46 has to literally be facing T-80U at point blank range perfectly without any horizontal angle just to penetrate the base hull armour of T-80B…
Yeah, no… it’s over performing
Yet we literally saw T-80BVM hull get defeated by just a mere 3BM42 Mango because the RELIKT failed. The round defeated the RELIKT casing which didn’t detonate and continued to defeat the hull armour, ammo racking the tank from a distance.
If gaijins protection value was correct
Then even the upcoming Russian 3BM42-2 Mango-2 APFSDS is ineffective against the hull armour of T-80B even without its ERA. Just drop it… we all know it’s BS.
M1A2 SEP V3 with upgraded hull armour achieves roughly 535-540mm KE and here you are telling me that T-80B from 1985 had more or less same hull protection as M1A2 SEP V3?!!! JUST NO…
Which one? I wanna see how doubles standard he is PM me if need be thanks
So you beat yourself with your own source, lol. Cause in your own table round, rounds, which are used as standard are - m744 and 3bm22. Not 3bm42. And guess what? They are different rounds.
What? How T-80U suddenly transforms to base T-80B? Maybe you meant 80BV? And no. You can test it ingame. 3BM46 penetatrates 80U hull without ERA from 500m (and actually further).
No, we didnt see it. Cause we have only two photos without any context. Have we photo of the inside? Cause without it we have just a destroyed tank (with unknown reason of destruction) and a hole in the Relikt casing (which isnt a proof penetration, cause, well, we dont see any penetration).
Just goes to show how much you lack knowledge.
By M774 gaijin meant standard apfsds
By 3BM22 gaijin meant apfsds with carbide core
3BM42, 3BM46 are standard apfsds rounds which don’t have higher 0 penetration than at 60 degrees etc…
T-80U is literally T-80BV but instead of Kontakt-1 it gets Kontak-5 ERA… the Base hull armour is identical.
When APFSDS defeats
520mm at 0 degreees
It defeats
243mm at 68 degrees - 648mm LOS
Now pls explain to the community how on earth the T-80U base hull armour which is 400mm LOS of Steel + 187mm LOS of mere fibre glass would ever be able to offer 648mm of steel equivalent protection.
You have 187mm LOS of pathetic fibreglass (weak against kinetic, meant for defeating chemical) inside a total composite array of 587mm LOS thickness. Getting 648mm LOS steel equivalent protection is pure science-fiction.
587mm LOS composite = 648mm Steel is 1.104x KE effective relative to LOS for the T-80’s hull composite in game right now… C-Tech composite on Leopard 2A5 only offers only 0.60x KE effectiveness relative to LOS thickness. Heck… M1A2 SEP V3 doesn’t even achieve 0.80x KE with DU armour in the hull…
Yes. And not 80B.
V just means Kontakt-1
T-80B from 1982 with Kontakt-1 is also T-80BV
What matters is the year they were built.
No. BV have differnet armor layout and its a little thicker.
So are you going to explain how
T-80BV hull composite of
400mm of steel
187mm of Fibre Glass
(587mm total LOS thickness)
Could offer 648mm LOS of steel equivalent protection or what?
When APFSDS defeats
520mm at 0 degrees
it defeats
243mm at 68 degrees - 648mm LOS
