Three bloody years on this game, and now I learn we get nicknames for these things. Unfortunately, I’m not seeing Mavericks when I hover over AGM 65Ds, but I digress. At least now I know what Hammers are.
1 Like
Propaganda aka moral for their troops.
Then stop using statements like " the red army" which hasn’t existed since 1946, the current Russian military is called the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation aka the army of the russian federation
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here, try reword it
Same hull design ? got a source for that?
As its a reworked larger hull with the crew moved to the front.
The autoloader is also different as the full turret is now unmanned.
last i checked its a newer 125mm gun, Believe only used on the T90M and T14.
And the doctrine for the T14 is not the same as when the USSR made say, T72, or T80 so the tank has changed, hence the height differences.
They’re systematically making.
T80BVM 3s I think it is, T72B3s, T90Ms, as well as refurbishing old tanks as well.
hence why the T14 is on a skeleton production line.
It sounds ignorant af and the damages the red army caused it is quite a poor name, it is not infact “cool” if you knew the history behind it.
Yes like i stated to you previously, the cost of it and moral effect of losing it one would be detrimental to them?
whats so hard to understand about it.
He also states that the same as the su57 it relied on western technology that of which has been incrdibly difficult for the russians to get.
This is beyond off topic and youre literally not going anywhere with your points?
Technically no either, officially the red army was changes to soviet army in 1946
The red army historically wasnt very good, so they changed the name of it…
I was talking that the Red Army encompassed the Soviet Union prior to 1946, I should have been more specific. Russian Army can either be the imperial military of Russia (prior to the fall of the empire) or the Federation. Then again, who exactly talks about the tsar anymore (hides my Orthodox cross and Nagant revolver).
1 Like
why shouldnt i?
if its sounds cool then id use it, the others have no problem either
if u dont like it then agree to disagree
heres a more better version
if sending it to the frontline to moral boost then why take it back
a tank that change nothing, moral boost yay new tanke then left, would that do anything to the slightest knowing that you wouldnt even have a chance to ride it after all or it wouldnt moral boost the one that is in the trenches because head boss want more land
“if they lose it”, IF they lose it which it wont because it was send to a well protected base to asset for firepowers and tactics which then was withdrawn because again, the cost
or other reasons
Why should I * not why shouldn’t I.
Because its not a case of agree or disagree, the red army has commited a plethora of atrocities across the time it existed, it is quite an inapropriate name to use especially for the context that it is in.
I would personally prefer you not use it, at least in these discussion, like calling the modern german army the Wehrmacht.
No tank is indestructible, at the time it was rolled into the field there was also the glaring issue of drones that if you haven’t noticed have rendered even the most expensive war machines useless.
Again I already stated that at the beginning of the conversation the moral and financial cost is why it was pulled from the frontlines , it is infact not a cancelled project.
I then went into more detail to inform you that it also suffers the same issues as the Su57 relying on western technology for some aspects of it, thus is even harder to manufacture right now.
Because in war, even seeing something that is touted as highly effective can boost morale, the troops on the front may only see it for a brief period in a safer area before deploying, thus meaning they may never know if it is actively fielded or not.
(currently not however thats not how morale bolstering techniques work)
Much like a tiger tank would put fear into allied troopers even when there was only a smattering of them. When german troopers seen it, it bolstered their morale, even if it wasnt some wonder weapon.
T-14 Is anything but a wonder weapon xd
They also don’t want the technology captured.
Every country does this.
Dont you just love the GBU-38(V)4/B with the BLU-109/B bunker buster warhead?
Or would you rather have me call it 500lb JDAM
1 Like
Yup! Your first sentence is right, but that’s why pretty much every country is making a cheap alternative.
Abrams X is too expensive.
KF-41 panther is too expensive etc etc.
T-90M does not have better protection…
T-14 has Monolith / Malachite ERA (not relict like I thought previously) and this is a whole new generation of ERA.
The T-90s have about 480mm UFP armor if I recall angled which equates to about 560~
The T-14 has 800mm at a slight angle, then add in the new generation ERA. Its armor is probably far closer to 1000mm.
More armor = more weight? Still way lighter than the abrams, Leo’s, challys…
Although I agree a new transmission for T90s would be nice, it would most likely require a hull lengthen to compensate, from my estimation, could be anywhere from 6-18 inches longer
60 was the last number i saw in January, they seem to make 3-4 a month.
Still a way higher a number than others producing new mbts. (Which it took 7 years for people to copy the Armata.)
Russian officials say some really random things just as in the US sometimes, even the UK and Germany. I’m not even sure if the defense minister deals with buying tanks, he just deploys his forces, usually someone under him on a committee will see the tank, test it, and buy it.
It’s a 2a82-M1 I believe, it got a new round with a longer projectile, Vaccum - 1 which has supposedly some pretty good stats. It carry’s 45 rounds of ammunition I believe.
Max gun depression is most likely -8 degrees now as the turret whole tank is slightly taller, but not like a towerous monster.
1 Like
Meanwhile russian dudes hanging ussr flag on their tanks in ukraine. Hmmmm
1 Like
I’m pretty sure the Red Army existed until the collapse of the URSS, And yeah, they still use the red army’s falg in the war.
1 Like
At least I know what you are talking about
Americans wave the CSA flag, I guess the Johnny Revs still own the South
1 Like
No the red army officially was renamed the soviet army in 1946.
Which is absolutely abhorrant in of itself and thus further proves my point in asking you to not use the red army statement.
Exactly, well said.
Renamed, but was still known as the red army by the soviets. That’s why sometimes you’ll find, during the Cold War era, soviet documents where it says Red Army instead of Soviet army.
1 Like
The last 2+ years showed cleary that the ERA concept doesn’t work against modern weapons and drones.
Maybe we should get back on topic here!!!
This is what i liked about WT compared to WoT, learn where to hit people for OHK or disable the enemy.
The addition of internal components makes the game even more realistic, that should be the goal, not cater to people snap shot center mass and not hitting anything vital. That for me is dumbing down the game
Same thing here reward snap shots , instead of knowledge where critical components are. Again dumbing down the game
Yes, and these should be modelled and effect the tanks performances, not a basket which only purpose is the mount said internals and keep the crew from mechanical injury and a place to stand
Maybe hamper or slow it down, but completely stop a mechanism strong enough to swing a 21 ton turret?
**Plausible, but then test them on the test server not on the live one. this puts two MBT families at a disadvantage when this was implemented. From what i hear in the comments a single piece of schrapnel can now render the turret inoperable, that is a significant “consequence”
And when all the work is done then implement on all MBT’s at the same time.
Also why model internals at such details, taking up development time, but use a two disk damage model for the actual basket? this kind of eye candy for me is not needed since it serves no purpose. or is this an intermediate step towards switching form the “two disk” damage model to the “actual” internals?**
To sum it all up:
-
implement changes to better or make the game more “realistic”;
-
not make it easier to damage / destroy or incapacitate vehicles with poorly aimed shots;
-
that for me has always been the strength of this game knowledge is rewarded;
-
Test implementation which effect the players on such a large scale on the Test-server, then implement to all effected, so that no-one has advantage or disadvantage from the changes;
-
These changes are now implemented to USA, GER & SWE since they operate predominantly these two MBT types with smaller contingents in the ITA and FRA trees.
-
So 3 out of 10 nations are effected;
-
This is the second “realism nerf” to the leopard family, talking about the barrel versus engine deck “fix”;
-
but where are the actual fixes:
-C & D - tech armour inserts;
-loading leopard hull magazine from the top not from the bottom (simple ergonomics)
-Regenerative steering (been in the works for a long time);
-Actual used munitions for both MBT’s (M833 & DM33);
-Why do NATO tanks stop all weapon functions, when FPE is used?
-Or when crew changes and loaders stop loading and switches to gunner, then starts proces all over again?
-More for myself, in GFAB i need to research LSR but it doesn’t work as in GFRB?
8 Likes
Damn dude u just said red army was renamed to soviet army. Only name changed bruh. They are not the same thing at all. My god…