This reminds me of the issue Soviet engineers ran into regarding the B-29 they were trying to reverse engineer.
“One item in the American manuals puzzled the Soviet engineers mightily. It was a phrase reading ‘Start the putt-putt’. None of the engineers could recall coming across this term before; the team researched much aviation literature but to no avail. The mystery was solved by pure chance when someone started the emergency generator/auxiliary power unit which was driven by a two-stroke engine and this started emitting an unmistakable putt-putt-putt-putt-putt…”
A potential issue is that the modeling of post-penetration damage depends on the scale of residual penetrative capacity, thus providing a flat bonus to penetration as is precedent with the current modeling of tandem HEAT warheads. will throw things off, and not properly reflect performance against non-ERA equipt targets, with no implemented method of accounting for the presence of ERA.
The point is that Gaijin would have to do a bunch of work “under the hood” to make it work that they weren’t willing to do, when the reload buff “solved” the issue, the same way all of a sudden Autoloaders get their best possible bench speeds (the carousel, and inventory are immaterial and next cell over will have the requested shell even if not possible to load as such).
It’s intended to avoid reducing their BR at all costs so they are “revising suggestions” looking for the path of least resistance, where possible.
No They literally saw primary documentation and told us to pound sand. because they couldn’t figure out how it works so concluded that it doesn’t.
Idk OSA is quite capable against drones, I’ve never had issues with them. Although I rarely see them in battles, in general usually there aren’t that many air targets at these brs, unlike at top tier.
Weird, I constantly see those drones when I am using the Stormer AD and HVM
Maybe they actually aren’t that common and me getting annoyed about the fact that I usually cannot lock them with those SPAAs makes me feel like I see them a lot more than I actually do
The issue here is that the Armor scheme isn’t on that list of yours is it. That is the tradeoff for the M1 being otherwise serviceable, in skilled hands. For the average player it’s a crippling deficiency and is reasonable for the bad rap it gets.
The Abram’s not being well armored relative to the ammo that it gets shot at with is the downside.
The SEP V3 isn’t going to magically make the armor somewhat functional, considering they rebuffed any sort of upgrade for the -A2’s hull array.
It’s more than servicable. In the hands of skilled players it’s incredibly strong.
I disagree with this. The Abrams reputation is disproportionally bad compared to it’s actual in game performance.
True, but at least it still should have been added 2 years ago instead of the SEPv2 in air superiority. Since it’s at least a closer counterpart to the 2A7.
Of course but that in itself is an issue, Gaijin balances based on the averaged performance, and as such there is a large population that doesn’t do so well.
Depends on the individual player, and if the matchmaker gives them a team that doesn’t fold like a lawn chair…
It’s not though, we know the M1A2 could have ( / was intended to have) improved the performance of the turret & hull array over that of the M1A1. The issue is we don’t have numbers to put to the improvement, so as usual nothing is done. And it’s not sufficient to report, either.
I’m just explaining the math and rationale here and not agreeing nor disagreeing with Gaijins choice regarding this.
The thing with this that many misunderstand is that the stat cards show the average g load and not the peak g load as that gives players a better understanding of what they can expect in performance from the missile.
For a missile that rotates the fins can only be providing max lift for a turn when they are orthogonal to the direction of the turn and no turning at all when they are perpendicular to the direction of the turn. So over a half rotation the ratio of provided lift compared to a non rotating missile will on average be the integral of sine between zero and pi and then divide the result with pi ( ≈ 0.6366). Take that ratio and multiply it to the peak g load to get the average over the half turn and you get (20 times 0.6366… ≈ 12.7 and rounded to 13g).
So as i understand it the stingers peak g load should be 20g in game already.
(There is the argument that the manual gives the 20g as an average and not the peak but i don’t think i’m knowledgeable enough in that area to have an opinion on that yet, i’ll not be shy to learn more though if anyone want’s to inform me)
But you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one, which was also the frustrating part of the SEPv2 release.
I mean demokrat is a perfect example. He isn’t even the worst player yet he thinks that the Abrams is the worst top tier MBT in game and that US ground overall is the worst top tier nation.
The issue is that the entire erroneous argument that underpins the flawed reasoning of the MANPADS article is only true for the case where the control surfaces are a bi-modal (aka. Bang Bang) system as is the case with the Igla / Redeye (FIM-43).
As is well established for the FIM-92 as shown in the currently awaiting implementation for one and a half years report, it uses a proportional control section where the control surfaces can deflect optimally(via dithering the actuators at 250 cps around the commanded surface deflection) regardless of orientation.
And as such the FIM-92 (and probably Mistral, but no data) shouldn’t be impacted by the G-Averaging mechanic, thus be able to take full advantage of their lateral acceleration listed in their respective primary sources, and so have their limit be increased to ~20G.
So in essence from what i can tell it’s still sort of a bang bang but with a orientational filter making the missiles wings only guide at the “top” of the sine curve and not through the entire sine curves hyperbola?
That would negate a lot of energy loss from overcorrecting in the positive and negative orthogonal direction but wouldn’t it also result in a lower average g-load for the half rotation as the integral for the guiding period becomes smaller?
Wait… i might be dumb, i think i’m reading the wrong patent… excuse my morning confusion.
Edit2:
So now that i’ve read the correct document…
What i gather from this is that the guidance logic deflects the wings an amount depending on the targets deviation from the desired angle in relation to the missiles direction of travel. So they do not fully deflect unless needed due to a very high of boresight target. This should result in much better energy retention but in my understanding not a higher average g-load as the max attainable average g-load would still be the same as currently in the game. It’s just that the deflection isn’t made at a maximum for every case of deviation, but instead a proportional deflection is applied based on the targets deviation amount.
So max peak g-load and max average g-load would in that case still be correct but the guidance should be smother and it should not overcorrect if the target is (or is very close to) inline with the missiles direction of travel.
So, all nations received a missile as powerful as the Kh-38MT? Or a missile as powerful as the Vikhr? Or did their main battle tanks receive anti-splinter liner? And now all countries have received the BMPT?
But if we go back listing unbalanced additions, the US certainly has quite a list of those as well, so I’m not sure you want go there if you want to preserve your skill issue camouflaged as “US suffers” agenda.
