you will have to give me a bit to go find it, I remember talking about it with someone in the last rumour round up for the last patch
1 Like
You what?
1 Like
Russia uses that since KV-1S to these days
No. We are requesting valid legal material that supports your claims. So far nothing has been provided; https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en
This is an acceleration report. Common for most vehicles. It has nothing to do with Hyperbar not being modeled.
Unless it changed since the blog talk, it complied as it was tested including tank side armour, and when shooting from the tank front, not block front.
1 Like
You know…
I’ve heard this happening so much, even from people outside the forums.
So there must be some truth in it, right?
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gpuxRxnCZtm7
it was closed by TrickZZter which isnt surprising
3 Likes
Hyperbar modeled would help the acceleration, no ? That’s the point where Leclercs is lacking here.
What the point with that and hyperbar?
Also ERA lacking 95mm of KE for Brennus for example have been acknowledged 2 years ago.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XN0AZmOkU0Ym
4 Likes
The pont lacking is what is missing about Hyperbar. You keep repeating it but haven’t shown spesifcally what. A report on acceleration is common to any vehicle. It’s nothing to do with a missing feature.
I like how he can’t even be bothered to translate the dev response
1 Like
And yet people will just repeat and repeat saying the same old fairy tail they love.
Whatever you model or not hyperbar, leclercs are way behind what they are capable mobility/acceleration wise.
It’s just stupid than Leopards or M1s have the same speed, or even better while thei weight more and have less engine power.
You can see videos, but i know you don’t accept video, except when you use them for refusing some things as it already happened.
2 Likes
yeah it was aclosed because the devs showed it being shot from an angle not flat on
Who closed it is not relevant as its being closed with a response from the developer. This is a good example of a bias bias being formed for no reason against a staff member who is simply passing on the developers response. That same answer could have come from me.
Ultimately though the matter has been concluded and it is correct in game.
2 Likes
It is not. Thankfull after i saw that during the talks, i did a report myself.
I explain there how STANG tests are conducted for armour blocks.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MW8kHDxpcYte
“In the game TES/OES side protection is better than stated in ASPRO-H STANAG 4569 level 5 (25mm APDSFS @+/-30° @ 500mm)”
As you can see from the example above, sadly most of it is people blaming an individual for something that has nothing to do with their actions or decisions.
This report was concluded by the Devs, but the person who closed it is somehow being targeted here for no reason.
as far as I am aware the report talks about a flat shot onto the block not an angled shot which the devs closed it by saying it matches the armour value provided in an angled shot
wasnt it TrickZZter that was the one who pixel counted an image to get the challenger 2 TES side armour nerfed from 110mm to 40mm
2 Likes