Yeah cuz who needs to take off :clueless:
The CFTs act as skids
:Clueless:
Ah and replace the landing gear bays with even more fuel, smort
Trust me Iam an engineer
1 Like
Its all the venomous snakes that got into the fuel tanks. Supercharged the fuel
More like venemous snails
It’s Australia, everything is venomous here. Could have been a frikkin moth for all we know.
Snail because of gaijin
… The snail
Venomous Jet turbine
Yeah no, I got it the first time.
So why does Thai T-84 received BTA-4 while Pakistani T-80UD that actually used this round didn’t get it? And T-84 cannot fire GP125 missile in reality too.
And the performance of AGM-179 and CM502KG is like a joke when compared with LMUR. XD
2 Likes
Honestly, Gaijin’s Issue section is the most abstract, bureaucratic, and inefficient system I’ve ever encountered. First and foremost, it’s plagued by condescending, arrogant, and overbearing Issue moderators. Honestly, the gentleman who claimed,“We believe only missiles launched from high-altitude drones can reach Mach 1.1” is likely the culprit behind most of these questions. But are the vast majority of well-documented questions rejected, while some outrageous claims are approved, simply because the moderators themselves defy the fundamental principles of physics and aeronautics? Take the recent J-10A empty weight issue, for example. Who would use maximum takeoff weight and fuel weight to estimate empty weight? Yes, our question moderators. The explanation has been provided with images.
The biggest problem with the Issue section is the complete lack of transparency and fairness. Players’ painstakingly gathered information can be rejected as ridiculous, and once approved, the question can languish for a year or two, ultimately forgotten. There is also a situation where an issue with sufficient evidence chain is required to be merged with an old issue from one or two years ago, and the founder of the old issue may not even play this game anymore. Such examples are also everywhere.
4 Likes
Shocking news:
Bigger missile can go further
More news:
The Mi-28 can’t carry as many Fnf missiles as other helicopters without sacrificing its air to air missiles
Trivia: Lighter missiles allow for more payloads. Both the AGM-179 and CM-502 can carry 16 missiles while being lighter, and the advantages of solid-propulsion systems make the ranges of the three similar. And the CM502 warhead charge isn’t RDX; China stopped using RDX long ago.
What’s even more outrageous is that there are still quite a lot of ammunition in the Chinese technology tree that have similar problems. For example, the HJ-9 of the AFT-09 even uses the Japanese Navy’s Type 88 charge, which is still in World War II.
1 Like
Problem is probably that it is quite hard to find proper sources on Chinese equipment unlike with western and Russian stuff
This is certainly a problem, but the most serious problem is that the information found by players cannot be sent to the development team by bypassing the Issue area. Many problems remain completely unresolved.
1 Like
For example, the CM502 warhead power feedback. Current test results indicate an error in its attack logic. While it doesn’t follow a high-loft trajectory, its semi-armor-piercing/high-explosive warhead incorrectly has the 0.3 overpressure limit of a HEAT round, making its power extremely poor. For this obvious bug, the only available footage is in-game testing, which is likely the purpose of the test server. However…
1 Like
The new VT-4 in 11.7 is just like a joke…
Its mobility isn’t better than the MBT-2000 due to increased weight, and its reverse speed is even slower. The gun depression angle is worse, as well as the magnification of the gun sight. The armor level didn’t change much since this VT-4 still uses FY-2 ERA and has the large unprotected LFP. The only thing that has been improved is the dual 2nd-gen TVD sight. And the new VT-4 is in 11.7, the same BR as M1A2 and T-80UE-1.
Just like Chinese players have speculated, few employees of gaijin have played any Chinese vehicles in game.
4 Likes