What is this nonexistent Nato hump on the sides i hear gaijin is trying to add to all leo 2s? what is this hump? i’m looking at multiple real images and don’t see the sides being raised like the engine deck
Nothing to do with ‘Chinese bias’ the moment a Chinese tank is used as an example, dear lord.
Well, doesn’t seem to be any other way when the thread is claiming anti-NATO bias.
Sounds like you just want to be offended.
And everybody in the thread is not?
One nation has their vehicles nerfed, the other has their barrel clip through components.
Oh, and wouldn’t you know, it’s a R/*dd/*t post. Classic. 1000 “upvotes” and 133 comments from our favourite burning garbage dump.
1 Like
And that matters somehow?
1 Like
I hate how every nato player seems to have a victim complex, especially on reddit.
2 Likes
There is a large difference between a literal flap of rubber which can be folded by the barrel and a in-built safety feature on the Leopard 2 series of MBTs, comparing apples to Polar Bears over here?!
2 Likes
Large difference between physical limitations and safety features/procedures, but Gaijin wouldn’t know anything about that.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Large difference between physical limitations and safety features/procedures
A there are videos of the Al-Khalids rear engine flaps being folded by the barrel with no issue and B even if you attempt to turn of the safety feature it remains in-place and isn’t something you can flick off with a button of sorts - permanently on basically (from my understanding).
Yeah, this is a dumb addition but instead of advocating for the removal which 100% won’t happen it would be best to advocate for such things on other vehicles in realistic ways instead of mentioning flaps on the Al-Khalid.
Mainly the British mains who cope the most (coming from a Chinese/UK main myself lmao)
What’s also funny is the fact that the rear flaps for the MBT-2000 and now the Al-Khalid use to restrict the gun depression of the vehicle, a bug report was made for a more realistic removal of it and it came into the game.
It’s more realistic to make it unrestricted than restricted in this case
2 Likes
We don’t need ‘realistic’ things in an arcade game that take 10 minutes for a match where we fight over arbitrary circles with nothing of value, with modern vehicles but WW2 maps half the time, against and alongside vehicles from all over the world in the most impossible alliances, with time traveling vehicles and all sorts of nonsense.
Realism is used to nerf things when it’s convenient, the Leopards have been in the game for over 6 years and suddenly now, out of nowhere, this realistic feature needs to be implemented that crippled the performance of entire top tier lineups of multiple nations, but they won’t also add the ability to disable this feature, so you only get the negative aspect of it of course.
This is the same type of garbage as the TOW launcher retracting or all ATGM vehicles being unable to fire on the move except Russian ones.
2 Likes
Not really. I don’t see many Russian mains who whine anywhere near as much as NATO/US/Germany mains. They are so much louder and so much more annoying.
We don’t need ‘realistic’ things in an arcade game that take 10 minutes for a match where we fight over arbitrary circles with nothing of value
War Thunder has one of the most complex tank models in gaming (for the newer models at least), it’s pretty obvious they lean to historical loadout options and realistic performance of vehicles when possible.
There will always be exceptions and majority of the time it’ll be for balance like the Ariete and DM53 which is never used in real life or the BVM having the option for full 3BM60 in the autoloader which should be physically impossible due to dart length.
The Leopards are currently the best top tier GROUND vehicles in-game, this is probably for balance and I see no issue with it, the T-90M falls far behind the 2A7s or 122s in nearly all aspects.
The only actual arcade element of War Thunder is the single crew playstyle (you as a gamer) and third person with the inclusion of unrealistic game modes and everything else besides that is pretty solid.
Yeah, and those exceptions are always so convenient, and now start adding safety features, which Russia won’t have any of anyways, you can add all sorts of nonsense… next they’re going to add rules of engagement so NATO will have to ask permission to use force, something Russia also doesn’t have.
1 Like
Well i also don’t see much of German main complaint about Sweden OP much either
And if you don’t see about RU complain that much
Look at air thread R-77 vs AIM-120
Most complain came from RU main that US op
While most nation in the game does not
I don’t see Japan Sweden Israel France even German stuck using F4F ICE complain much about US being so much OP