The Finns are secretly storing vodka where the armor plates were meant to be
1 Like
new fragmentation mechanic?? it looks like the APCBC shells are fragmenting while perforating armor
shell of the T-54 BR-412 which exploded in the solid part of the tank and the fragmentation of the shell continues to pierce the tank
3 Likes
Id believe that if the plates were covered with a tarp, again 8.7 with 1 belt of apds and no missile launcher and worse armor all around seems kinda meh and unfinished, so the standard for most updates
The BMP seems rather outclassed in 8.7, so id assume 8.0 is a fitting pick. However we must be reminded that the menance that is the pbv 501(an East German BMP that isnt in German TT).
Id say it would be more of a menace if germany 6.7 wasnt already kinda big (if we include BP and event vehicles.) So realistically a single PBV isnt that threatening. Now with a bigger lineup but sure then yes it could be dangerous. 6.7 sweden is far from a meta lineup with only 2 decent vehicles and that depends if you’re not fighting the US when it comes to being merked by a 50 in the Bkan.
Regardless the BMP-2MD is a disappointing vehicle and imo has no point in existing in its current BR without either getting IRST or some new belt like the Belgian 30mm apfsds or more than 1 belt of ammo. The BMP-2 is very good at 8.7 but you also get a fast reloading ATGM which can be fired from behind cover and the same amount of ammo for the 30mm. With better armor lmao.
this can pose a problem, IRL a shell loses its kinetic energy during the shock and cannot pierce a tank entirely but in Wart the APCBCs will continue to pierce your tank from side to side with the fragmentation
in this configuration the M4A1( 104 mm pen ) shell is supposed to explode directly after having pierced and not continue its route and explode in the middle of the tank
4 Likes
yeah we know, and Gaijin knows.
they offered to change it and the greater WT community had a collective brain aneurism when they proposed we test it on the live server in a special event and thus a feature i would have loved to see was shot down before it ever saw the light of day
5 Likes
Reversing IS2 players in shambles
2 Likes
the only part of that change that players couldn’t change gaijins mind on was the warhead/penetrator of APHE shells continuing to pen after HE detonation
Might even already be somewhat DOA…or at least will lack in some areas like not having HMD…only 120 CMs compared to others which is ok but still not a lot…no MAWS (tbf we still dont know 100% if it does or doesn’t have maws just no proof it does have it) and unless they give us the 6 fox 3 2 IR loadout…it will have only 4 fox 3s and 4 IR which is balanced i guess but considering top tier favors FOX 3s more now its a draw back.
1 Like
You know what’s really odd, I don’t recall a single instance of seeing Tor-M1 rumoured for Russia?
Seems odd to put such an iconic Russian system in another tree, but two years on still no sign in its host tree.
Do you think it’d just be the sheer outrage, at the country who has the best SPAA by a mile, getting arguably the second best AA too, that holds them back from doing this?
Basically all US Fighters stating with the F-100 (with a few exceptions that saw use in an Interceptor / A2A focused role like the F-102 & F-15), could at least take; or were tested with a pair or two of Shrikes / HARMs. So it’s practically a non issue for Tech trees that have access to a US client nation, Its much more an issue for the Russian tree since their options (ignoring the Seeker’s Bandwidth constraints, more detail on what would occur if they were modeled can be found in this topic) we’re only really carried in small number by a handful of specialist airframes to go after Static Early warning / Strategic radar sites, so would not be widely available at anywhere near the degree something like the Shrike was. Though the tradeoff is that they have significantly better performance, or they get much more modern subvariants , than their western counterparts to make up for it.
oooohh…
it’s painful to land without landing gear anymore…
they made creaking and scratching noise…
It’s crazy how much they’re holding it back because of AESA and yet they’re nerfing AESA/PESA anyway by stating it’s not as good as we think it is.
Depending on the version, I think no reason to not use the F-2 late and just bring it with HMDs. I don’t think F-2 can carry 6 AAM-4s anyway unless the structural issue can be ignored.
The 120 CMs will be a little low and limiting but at least it’s workable. Can probably run a 40/80 split of flares and chaff. Either way it will have lower staying power, especially if focused.
Overall, I think it can still be competitve until other better WVR aircraft show up. Though I feel the F-2 will still hold the best 1 circle capability with the +12g limit that can also be overriden, which should at least translate to +18g pull in WT.
3 Likes
Sadly there is no evidence that late F-2s even got HMD as well
2 Likes
idk, a lot of the export versions might have never been tested on those missiles while US service ones were cleared for them, and USA sometimes removes ability to fire certain weapon completely from some export aircraft
Has there been any new info? In the F-2 topic @コタリ mentioned:
When the F-2A got it’s new AMC, it was provisioned to use an HMD along with AAM-5s and ASM-3 functionality. F-2s likely got HMD functionality when AAM-5s were integrated on the airframe which is exactly what happened with the F-15J getting it when it integrated AAM-5.
So sounds like a similar situation to the F-15J(M). We obviously don’t have AAM-5 but we have the HMD it would have been equipped with.
3 Likes
They would retain a baseline capability to use them, it’s the advanced modes and automatic handoff methods & features that would be limited (also lacking AN/ASQ-213 integration, further limits SA / GPS coordinate generation of contacts & handoff to other stores and functionality), not unlike Export grade Targeting pods having their Maverick automatic handoff functionality removed.
I would like to add mig 31 and su 30 or su 35 for american f/a-18 and german as swiss aircraft
1 Like