The M1A2 has received plenty of buffs ever since it’s introduction.
However that doesn’t change the facts that these 3 vehicles stomped for a while after their release, meaning that your statement of “Cause the US can’t have anything meta” is false. Not to mention that the Abrams is still incredibly fun to play currently, excluding the SEPv2 which is less fun.
Sure, except it was nerfed into the light tank that can’t take a hit that it is now. I’d rather play the RDF/HSTVL any day of the week over Gaijin’s abrams. Other than pixel hunting, the T series and Leos are much better at being tanks than the Abrams. It’s funny they got the Abrams so wrong, it should be the meta MBT. The mantlet is wrong, the gunshield is wrong, hydraulic pump location is wrong, and the turret basket is not the whole fking turret drive. The devs are cope soy boys that artificially keep the Abrams what it is. Just like they did with the Comanche after fking over all the preorder people out of the armor it should have. (still no reason given by and mods or game logs)
It’s funny none of the devs/mods/tech mods will acknowledge my gunshield thread. God forbid they have to admit the measurements they took from the M1 at the museum doesn’t apply to the M1A1 and newer tanks.
I give this post 10 minutes before some little soy boy flags it.
Leopard 2A7s and Strv 122s maybe, but the Abrams (excluding SEPv2) have much more potential than the BVM and 2A5/2A6. Armor is not the only thing that matters, which is why the vast majority of the good players will always choose the Abrams over any T-series tank.
Maybe? Are you delusional? That’s a 100% yes.
Potential, yes, realized no. That’s how bad Gaijin did the Abrams. Anything above the hull frontally should be almost impenetrable, aside from shots into the optics.
I haven’t played the BVM but playing against it, I know that the turret is really well protected. Sure the cannon depression is lacking but players who know how to position do well with them. 90% of the bvm kills I get are just from people who have no patience and rush out exposing their LFP. They have better potential than the Abrams hull down. This should not be the case.
Even in game the Abrams already has much more potential than any of the T-series tanks lmao, you just need to be barely decent at the game to play it.
It’s turret is incredibly weak outside of the few ERA blocks. It’s legit the same turret as the 10.7 T-80B.
Only when they face bad players.
Although I do feel like we are derailing the topic slightly.
Nah man, just because you believe that it has more potential which we can argue endlessly about doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fixed.
Peep this thread Abram's gunshield info needed (found proof ATTN: Mods)(Mods ghosting this thread)
Indeed, well back to the Comanche, it certainly got gutted for still no reason given
its great how you two are polluting this thread with nonsense… real nice. go take it somewhere else so those waiting on fixes on the RAH-66 can not be disappointed and just find off topic here instead of important updates.
So the Comanche finally got a proper cockpit in update Tusk Force but there seems to be a few issues with it, particularly the MFD screens.
Firstly, the right side MFD screen just doesn’t work. It should have multiple different pages but in the latest dev server it didn’t have any and it looks like it might not when the update drops.
Secondly, some of the screens present are wrong compared to how they looked in real life. The map and radar displays are completely wrong, and the camera screen whilst close is still not accurate and is just a copy and paste from other US helicopters.
And thirdly, there are some screens that are just missing like the engine instruments, sensor and weapon controls, and arms display of weapons currently being used.
(Not the best photo but you can clearly see what looks like a display for the weapons that are in the internal bay.)
Although its not a major issue it would be nice to see these added so the cockpit can be finished.
Why on earth doesn’t the RAH-66 have access to the AGM-114K? You know, the standard laser-guided variant of the Hellfire at the time the RAH-66 was being tested and still when it would have entered service? I won’t bring up the AGM-114L which the devs are scared of adding for some reason.
Not only that, but AGM-114B’s left service before the RAH-66 started development, so it could not have them anyway.
Does anyone know the exact thermal imager resolution on the RAH-66 in War Thunder?
Is it gen 2 or gen 3, and does it differ from Apache or Ka-52 thermals?
Is stealth in War Thunder actually dynamic for the RAH-66, or is it just a static parameter?
Does opening the weapon bay doors increase radar or IR signature in any way?
When the internal bay doors are open, is the Comanche more detectable by radar or IR seekers, or does the game ignore this completely?
Does using only internal weapons give any real stealth advantage in gameplay, or is it just cosmetic and role-play?
Do external pylons actually increase RCS / detection range, or is stealth fixed regardless of loadout?
In short:
Is RAH-66 stealth in War Thunder a real mechanic with penalties and benefits, or just a marketing label with simplified detection values?
Yeah, it does; opening and closing the bay doors and landing gear will have an effect on your signature. Same with the F-117
Gen 2
does it in game? i dont think so.
Yeah, IIRC it does, just like the F-117…
no???
pls give some footages or something
I’ll never really understand why the devs think the 114Bs is significantly worse than the 114Ks that it needs to be considered for balancing. Both perform nearly identical in game. Yes the 114Ks have a tandem but both have extremely high pen where tandem charge isn’t really noticed.
Just a friendly reminder that Dutch Ah-64D being nearly identical to the US Ah-64D (except without it’s radar) is placed at 11.7 along with the US Ah-64A.
