The best proposal GIAT could come up with in 1990 was 430 mm KE. And a separate 1991 paper states that after reviewing the design Britain’s view is that 500 mm KE wouldn’t be possible without a major redesign of the turret. So I would be very surprised if in the space of a few years GIAT managed to boost the KE protection to 700+ mm like the report claims, while keeping the turret design essentially unchanged from that seen in the Swedish trials.
Maybe armour technology had moved on by the time later Leclercs came about, but for the early models I doubt armour protection was much better than that described in the British and Swedish evaluations.
I hate to bother you like this but these vague response really come off as placating rather then actually addressing concerns. A response shouldn’t be that hard to give, unless what you are trying to do is figure out a way to say go pound sand without receiving backlash?
1st question
At time of really efficient missiles, why none of the aircrafts over 11.7 BR don’t have access to Chaffs while being stock?
Because:
R-27ER or AIM-7M are really efficient to kill anyone, even when flying as close as 10m over the ground impossible to dodge.
Therefore the 10 free repairs are mostly spent dieing until we reached Flares/chaff modification
2nd question
Why don’t we still have Flare/chaffs selector?
It is pretty obvious that this should be implemented ASAP,… and it’s not even that hard as we just have to set 3 keybinds, which would work as the current one.
→ Flare
→ Chaff
→ Emergency release[which is the current]
@Smin1080p I would like to know, when we talk about later discussion here, we mean how long will there be news? The information is very clear, M1A2 is DU armor, hope to see the relevant news as soon as possible
As a sidenote to all the complaints the community has, can we all agree that the level of quality on responses on bug reports has drastically increased?
Now we actually get a response from devs on why the report was not accepted/implemented and i love it!
They would forget about it just like M735 case. They stated themselves that it was corrected wrongly but refused to undo it for 1.5 month straight already
But it would have been far more simple if we can have the full in Company status :
Once acknowledge on the plateform, it would be easy to create a page of each vehicules and reports on going or closed in the last 2 weeks, with a status alongside those:
→ Not reviewed
→ Reviewed waiting for planification
→ searching for more information (i had a trouble of 2 years for Etendard IVM, and only knew about it when i spammed Smin,…)
→ Planned to be implemented (similar to “coming in the year”)
→ working on subject
→ Incoming next [major/minor] update (ready but not implemented)
→ Implemented // not a bug: insert short reason
This i agree with.
they should even sort bugs into categories on the site.
in the same way when you choose what the report is for; we should be able to list things in those categories and look at all the reports for each category separately. and maybe even list all the vehicles as subcategories in the vehicles section. that way other people can help with more information if the “information requested” tag is there (maybe limit to adding files and images to not make it a mess of conversations?).
I guess 7 fighter aircraft at rank 8 up to 12.7 BR in first major update & second major update 2024.
Gaijin expanding the battle ratings to 13.0 for fighter aircraft toptier in Q4 2024 (october or december) because 13.0 BR it might be fighter aircraft armed 5th gen infrared Air-to-Air Missile & medium-range BVRAAM range 100km, F/A-18C carries 10x AIM-120 AMRAAM and early 4+ gen fighter with PESA radar
Su-27S & J-11 Flanker-B would be top 4 fighter aircraft 12.3 BR but gaijin not change higher 12.3
I guess in next year gaijin might considered expand battle rating to 12.7 BR max for 7 fighter aircraft at rank 8, add medium-range active radar homing BVR on 6 fighter aircraft and add Python 4 replacement AIM-9M sidewinder & AIM-7M Sparrow on F-16D Block 40 Barak
The community has periodically raised questions about reinforced hull armor, and, in particular, Depleted Uranium armor in the hull of Abrams series tanks. We’ve studied the issue in detail, however, due to the sheer volume of the topic we are currently not ready to talk about it quite yet. We will go through the details a little later in a separate devblog on this topic.
We’ve studied the issue in detail, however, due to the sheer volume of the topic we are currently not ready to talk about it quite yet
I just want to know what this even means, “The sheer volume of the topic…”? Like the amount of bug reports? Sources? Comments? Data? It’s giving one series of tanks their proper armor. What is so voluminous about it? It’s been an issue for well over a year.