Yes.
That’s what I was implying.
1 Like
Ah, though I would argue it would benefit some nations more than others, those that favour long range for example.
Abrams and T-80s would essentially be identical, tho only BVM has thermal gun sights, whereas previous T-80s only have thermal observation sights.
However, I don’t think WT is anywhere close to modeling thermal observation sights as we can’t even choose which commander optic to use as our default on tanks that have multiple.
1 Like
Was thinking the Chally 2 hunter-killer system that allowed the comander to select multiple targets and snap the gun to it, with it already figuring out range and lead to hit the target.
1 Like
Sounds like some of your sources probably aren’t direct enough to meet the standards for adding them into the game. Keep in mind too, the devs only functioning logic when it comes to introducing stuff into game, is competitive balance. It’s the same reason why the T-90S Bhishma is going to the UK, because they perceive it will help balance the gameplay experience for the UK. Development also takes forever, so we really don’t know what’s coming down the pike.
The best thing you can do is remain the best advocate for positive changes as possible. Going down some rabbit-hole about “Russian bias” will never get you anywhere.
Can you stop being vague? Is there a specific “anti-ERA” round or is it just another APFSDS, and if so, which one? How do we know if any of the penetrators are modelled properly? How do you know this magical round can penetrate most Russian vehicles, and what BR are you referring to? A lot of people underestimate the complex mathematics of protection from kinetic projectiles, and believe that certain rounds are some magic bullet, that they aren’t.
Nothing has zero problems.
It extends to most vehicles to some degree. Almost nothing is 1:1 modelled perfectly.
Hungary is the only country to actually have a production KF-41 in possession. Greece approved a purchase, and that’s all we have so far.
The M247 tried blowing up a port-a-potty with it’s incredibly flawed F-16 radar mashup. It never worked, and cancelled during trials. Yet in the game it’s one of the most potent SPAA’s in the game.
1 Like
Most nations have some sort of slaved FCS that can calculate distance and direction from LWS warnings too. At least the tanks that would be at peak top tier.
If anyone has seen in tank footage from the current conflict going on since February 2022, you can see in the Russian tanks, that aiming is more like selecting a target on an MFD and placing the blank crosshair on it. No range charts, mil-dots, motion/speed calculations or whatever. Gunnery is not the skill it used to be.
Real world performance tells you nothing about its capabilities, either. Take the T-80UM-2, for example, where its entire purpose was as a near static defense and it was destroyed by an infantry ambush.
It does tell most of it capability besides where else it should prove itself if not in war?
Because they only ever had one of them, it’s more of an exception than the rule.
Point is never in my life am I ever going to trust something coming from Russia, all their weapons have been claimed to be the best thing of all time, their missiles would be able to unstoppable and ended up being shot down by an old Patriot system, the T-14 is another super weapon but I doubt we’ll ever see that in action, in fact they took it out of Ukraine after a total of 0 battles and it likely was never even in Ukraine, but Russia will be Russia.
They also have torpedo’s that will just sink the UK somehow.
I have posted sources directly out of manuals, including russian manuals. And they still didn’t fix it. I don’t know how much more direct they need to be.
It isn’t vague, it is game breaking. For instance the Mk3/Mk5 should at a minimum get the L15A5 APDS-T or the L26A1 APFSDS. But really should be running the L28A1 APFSDS.
o279 has zero problems. Has more penetration than it should, and its armor is cast but due to poor modeling (or choices) is acting more like rolled steel.
Germany has also put in an order for 50 more of the KF41s.
The way this game is based, you don’t even need orders to bring in a vehicle. Realistically. o279, IS-6, IS-7… None of them even worked IRL, so orders are clearly not the deciding factor for the snail.
This is probably true for more tanks than people realize in game. Lots of German tanks for instance.
This is the reality, and we should be using real world combat data to adjust against the russian propaganda numbers. We could easily fix the russian line to be more realistic, we know they suck IRL. They have lost nearly 1000 tanks so far. Many of them detonating or being destroyed in a single shot by OLDER technology and rounds. Now that new stuff is rolling in, its getting even worse for them.
Their have been times that russia has been caught with vehicles that were simply shells with no technology at all parading around. Basically a shell, motor, and driver. They are very big on fake.
So the sum total of your complaints about “anti-era” ammunition is that an 8.7 vehicle has a standard round that struggles against threats it can see in game, up to 9.7. You do realize everyone else struggles in an up-tier too, right? The T-72A at 9.3 has to wait until Rank IV to get the 3BM22, which is a modest round at best. You don’t even get the L27A1 until 11.3, the L28, nor L28A1 even exist in game yet, and you want that round down as low as 8.7?
I guess you’re fine with 3BM42 for T-72A? Maybe bring the 3BM60 down to T-72B/T-80B and above?
This is not a sim game. It is a semi-realistic arcade game. BR’s are not going to be adjusted because Korean MiGs fell short against US Sabres. They’re not going to be adjusted because the Russians have lost tanks in a peer-to-peer conflict.
BR’s are set for the purposes of balance in game. Period.
Source needed. I can find nothing only that says Germany has ordered even 1 yet. Object 279, IS-6, and IS-7 all existed and were owned by the Soviet Union. Still more real than a non-existent purchase contract for a configuration of a KF-41 that doesn’t even exist yet for the Bundeswehr.
Especially British tanks, as it was their doctrine to hull down West of Fulda, and hope to hang on long enough for REFORGER to kick in.
Russian tanks are a lot sturdier than you think. Tanks in general are not invulnerable. “Older technology and rounds” makes little difference if a tank can be ambushed from the side or rear.
Most tank engagements have been fruitless on both sides. The little bit of footage we have available have seen T-80’s taking out T-64’s, and a T-90M taking out a column of BMP’s and MRAPs. The rest have been things like T-64’s and BTR-4’s ambushing BMP’s and BTR-80’s. We have yet to see an engagement between Russian and Western supplied tanks. This doesn’t mean it may not have happened, but it hasn’t been recorded.
Hell most losses have been from ATGM’s, mines, and FPV drones, on both sides. I’m assuming you get your loss sources from Oryx. They’ve been heavily discredited by multiple independent sources, and I’d take their numbers with a massive grain of salt.
Mediazona and BBC have both reported that August was the lowest month in losses for the Russians since the beginning of the SMO. Meanwhile, we know that since 6/4/23, Ukraine has lost ~71,000 men and significant chunk of their Western supplied armor.
Testing grounds, trials, and exercises overall. Of which there is fair bit of footage.
A 10.0 premium with a 90’s/2000’s upgrade package, seems appropriate to have an 80’s round.
Everyone else has 337-425mm of pen, therefore give my 8.7 tank a round with over 535mm penetration. 😂😂😂 Dude you aren’t keeping that round and not going up in BR, the neither the 3 or 5 is getting an L28, let alone an L27. So stop trying to justify it bro.
Yeah that’s bs dude. That’s like saying the Chally 2 has incorrect armor layout because you can pen the lfp when it doesn’t have it’s theatre protection kit installed. Tanks have weakspots. There’s nothing inherently propagandized about the T-72, T-80, or T-90. Once again, there have been no direct tank engagements between Western and Russian tanks so far. You can’t extrapolate any useful data from the SMO in regards to performance in War Thunder. Dream on dude.
You can’t make such a bold claim without substantiating it. You need a full forensic breakdown, distance of engagement, ammunition type, location of hit, etc.
Good! It’s much more a simulator than War Thunder. Maybe you should switch to GHPC, since you clearly don’t like how WT is being run.
What the hell is the Maus for then? Or most of the AMX-50 tanks? I’m not saying you can’t have prototypes. I’m saying you can’t invalidate the 279 for being a prototype. Can’t have your cake and eat it too bud.
You don’t have a source. KF-41 is not used by the Bundeswehr yet. It’s over, you’re wrong.
You want a prototype KF-41? Good luck. The devs have stated they are going to add a Puma with Spikes before that. If it comes, great! Just pointing out it’s not in service by the Bundeswehr, and is not planned to be added at this point. That’s it, stop reading into my comments what I haven’t put there.
The number is may be half of that, you need to checkout what Mediazona and the BBC are reporting. Also your overall casualties are backwards
Nothing survives modern ISR on the battlefield. Everyone else understands that real life scenarios =/= an approximation of how semi-realistic arcade tanks might fare against each other.
Russian bias doesn’t exist, especially not to the extent you proclaim. You underestimate Russian/Soviet designs and capabilities, and then are bitterly disappointed when every game of Ground RB you play isn’t a repeat of 73 Easting.
1 Like
All these except IS-6 were pretty much going well and could even be accepted, they were built in metal, tested all around.
Prototypes are more than common in WT, many nations have them.
1 Like
Comparing 9.0 tanks and 10.0 tanks in penetration. You do realise 10.0 is gonna be constantly uptiered to 10.3/10.7 in current game situation. Plus T72AV has armour of T72A, which can be easily penetrated by DM23, as far as i know.
1 Like
Nope those are 8.7 tanks. russia can see 440mm pen rounds at 8.7.
Leopard A1A5 is 9.3, Type 16 is 9.3, its prototype and first thing production series is. 9.0
What 440 mm pen rounds that i are not Hear or Atgm USSR has sat 8.7???
He must be thinking of the T-64A (1971) which is 9.3 now.
Do you mean 9.3?
Then clearly the manuals didn’t refute in-game data.
If L28A1 is superior to DM53, maybe not. IDK its characteristics tho.
Object 279 has its correct 30 & 60 degree penetration.
Germany has not placed any orders for KF-41s.
Object 279, IS-6, and IS-7 are all prototypes, and all were functional prototypes. There is no bias.