it spall a bit less but u cant traverse updown as high anymore
it doesnt generate spall. Its a bug
then its gonna spall more in live server and abrams suffer more
and they didnt give it its full turret manlet armor
That part was always in DM, just not shown in X-ray, so no difference in spall compared to 2.43
now i need to find sources about the sandwich armor in between the outer layer armor and the vertical drive plate(the drive plate should also count as a thin plate tbh but eh that would create more spall wouldnt it)
2 Likes
There was a whole bug report I believe made on it about the gun shield behind the actual front modeled armor, which is now for the first time shown in the X-rays in game. Abrams missing a sizable amount of armor in front of the Breach
rejected
yes i was there
Gun what?
What bombastic is talking about, the armor that is modeled as the vertical drive, there shouldn’t just be a gap, or a lack of armor there
2 Likes
From the maker of “All information about Russian, Chinese, and Insert American State Department Enemy Here is just propaganda!!1!1!1” cope thread, We bring you:
“Tank of Nation X is better in game than in real life! I know because I was in army of Nation Y for 20 years!” Ramblings indistinguishable from the mentally challenged.
In fact, I may need to bring out the US Main Bingo Sheet seeing how ridiculous this thread has become.
1 Like
You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want.
However, the historical record is very clear.
Russian and Chinese equipment performs very poorly compared to NATO equipment.
Post penetration survivability of carousel loaded tanks is extremely poor.
China and Russia are not globally competitive in the Automobile, Airliner, or electronics (indigenous designs) sector.
3 Likes
All these “in reality it’s like this and like that, why isn’t it like this here too?” don’t help.
Example:
Introduce a modern EF2000 (I’m using this example because I know its capabilities better than those of the other jets) into the game.
As long as it still carried an IRIS T, it wouldn’t be shootable.
First, it would be extremely difficult to even lock onto it due to the electronic warfare system. Then the IRIS T would fully automatically engage any incoming missile in 360°.
Be it an AMRAAM, a Patriot, a Stinger, an S400, or the Death Star’s death ray.
Incidentally, the 12 Brimstones would then fully automatically destroy 12 ground targets. It “only” carries 12 because, logically, six IRIS Ts are carried for missile defense.
Does anyone really want something like that?
I’m glad that realism isn’t taken so seriously.
No one here is talking about anything other than the turret basket problem, which now extends to the Chinese tree. This is the topic
The argument is repeatedly raised that something is different in reality.
For example, how damage after penetration interacts with the turret basket in the game.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Nobody wants realistic conditions in the game. Repairs in combat would be impossible, crew relocation, morale and crew injury would be affected by accidents with the terrain, destruction of gun barrels on buildings, etc.
And the same goes for the complete implementation of mechanics, such as the EF2000’s armament, which destroys any fun in the game.
Because it’s perfectly clear that the baskets are meant to be a nerf for the affected tanks. This has nothing to do with implementing real-life conditions.
The last nerf for the Leopard obviously wasn’t enough.
Now they want to make the Leopard’s 2 A7V spall liners unusable through the back door.
All other tanks will then be the proverbial collateral damage.
Let’s see what happens on the Life server.
If you’re too dissatisfied and they’ve overshot the target, you just play a different tree until Gaijin suddenly gets the idea that the basket doesn’t belong to the traverse at all :-).
This is the worst idea since the “last stand”…
Maybe just fix APHE ? I mean you already did it… (it is just not implemented)
“Historical record” being your own, unsourced, heavily biased, opinion. Denying reality seems to be the natural response of some when reality doesn’t align with their expectations…
You’re really not the most unbiased user to go around ‘biasing’ people.
Uh. No. The actual historical record. Every war/conflict from ww2 till now.
Russian stuff gets stomped by NATO stuff.
From Mig’s and T-34’s getting dominated in Korea to Ukraine inflicting massive losses on Russia.
Ofc a lot of modern Chinese stuff hasn’t seen combat, but given their tanks all share fundamentals with Russian tanks. No compelling argument for them to be better.
Jets are a different story. Although, given the poor quality of Chinese electronics and automobiles, the poor performance of the PLA navy, and the lack of wealthy countries buying Chinese equipment, it’s hard to argue any evidence that they would be competitive.
I mean not really. (USA vs USSR)
P47s and P51s became gods at altitude which most fights were mostly at. Out performing most of the WW2 Yaks and migs.
The F-86 and Mig15 were actually pretty even however the F-86 was easier to handled giving it the edge in most fights making it slightly better. Veitnam was not the best but the F-5’s and F-8’s were a way better dogfighter than the Mig-21 while the F-4 was a poorly executed fighter.
The Mig-25 lead to couple years of air superiority for the USSR until it was completely blown out of the water by the F-15. The F-22 is way older than the Su-57 while the Su-57 still less effective in way lesser numbers.
Additionally any (give or take 5) year difference will have an American fighter better in 9/10 than a USSR one. (95 percent of the time)
But to get to the point china has more propaganda and paper magic machines than the USSR did. I wouldn’t be surprised if half of them were US copies and the other half broke within a kilometer of being deployed.
2 Likes
I meant Chinese jets. They haven’t fought much.
Russian jets have been getting owned for 70 years.
2 Likes