Yeah im waiting to see if the SEPv2 gets its real armor or not before i ever trust gaijin again.
2 Likes
In the late 60-60-50 arrays. At the front and around the driver only.
:Edit i actually think it started at T-64. The anti rad lining
You cant be serious.
1 Like
Do you know why you can see it on the T-90Ms inside?
Because its a low quality piece of engineering placed in the vehicle as an afterthought, and not designed to be equipped with originally.
The spall liners on western vehicles were designed to have them to begin with, not tacked on to an archaic design we call the T-72 which became the T-90. A stop gap upgrade implemented to try and “get with the times”
And thats all the T-90s are… Stop gaps.
Seeing as the T-14 flopped. Its gonna stay an archaic vehicle upgraded as a stop gap being pushed to its limits. Ill even add that the T-90M is STILL using the 60-60-50 array first found on T-72B’89 when it was first seen. A 25 year old composite, which is why relikt came out. Bc its a stopgap era for the composite within not being upgradable any further. Because the base designs are simply so old
And thats why NATO spall liners look beautifully integrated. And as a level of secrecy not being able to assume or determine its composition or makeup.
Which is exactly how you are deriving your assumption, based upon visuals only. Completely disregarding the PILES of documents stating that it exists. Which is all that needs to be proven.
Chobams composition is STILL completely classified after over 50 years.
But we know EXACTLY whats in the latest and greatest Russian tanks.
Your what-about-ism is seriously appalling.
Im NOT EVEN GOING TO MENTION that now 12…
12 Soviet/Russian top tier vehicles UFP composite underneath the ERA is overperforming by over 100mm LOS or 90mm Flat pen equivalent.
Because Gaijin took their LOS Values and applied them as flat penetration equivalents.
Please think and research before you speak.
10 Likes
Well seeing how the Leopard 2A7V before today´s patch had more or less his real armor (it had less because uses D-tech IRL and in game has C-tech) and now has the same protection on the hull as a Leo 2A4 but with the Strv122 addon armor, I can tell you they gonna leave it like that Or do the same thing they do to the 2A7V. And this was reported but rejected “not a bug” using as argument his handwritten EXCEL page as source when we are giving them real sources…
4 Likes
lmao
1 Like
Literally not one player has ever “had to endure” anything. This is a video game, this is not a company that makes insulin medication. You can literally just stop and leave any time you want.
The fact that you haven’t means you find it overall more fun than you do annoying, so you’re a beneficiary not a victim, of Gaijin “over the years”/overall
2 Likes
What do you want a roadmap TO, in this case?
You can’t just give every tank all its real historical features at top tier. NATO tanks would perform better, and so you’d run out of Russian tanks to release in major updates AT ALL that could keep up with them. Players would be even more upset about that… which is worse? A vehicle lacking a spall liner for you in a release? or no vehicle for you at all ever again?
So what’s your solution, exactly? What are you asking for a roadmap for? Where is it supposed to lead to?
Publishing the T-90M with the spall liner while western tanks didn’t get it, is the issue the community had.
“I have an issue” doesn’t give a solution. What else would you have them do? If not this one feature, then something else or other, somewhere, has to buff russian tanks or nerf NATO tanks, for them to both have access to top tier and not run out of content.
Can you please pick a side and stay there instead of bouncing back and forth incoherently?
1 Like
Please, just this once QUOTE ME saying that.
Edit: thought so.
Here’s my side that has never changed since before 2012:
I am an American on the side of evidence, machinery, and unbias.
I still love trains to this day.
My stance has never once changed, and I’ve refuted every false accusation of bias & every spreading of propaganda with me refuting propaganda of Russian military equipment being the most common thing as of current new forum.
Tho I’ve refuted propaganda against M1 Abrams lately as well as someone who falsely claimed to have worked on Abrams claiming Abrams don’t have spall liners.
Sometimes i go out into a field on my hands and knees and eat grass.
2 Likes
I never said there wasnt. I know there are. But why everyone is upset is because literally the Chieftains had them. and so does every other nato tank after Generation 1 MBT.
And people have complained for almost half a decade now. And the MOST RECENT Russian tank iterations now have technology that has been in service since the late 60s early 70s implemented into the game.
And the T-90M is pioneering it, a modification of a tank that was a modification of a tank from 1972. Not the M1A2 sep2, not the leo 2av7, not Challenger 3. All of which have had spall liners in their composite designs for literal decades.
And all of the tier 8 ground tanks should’ve had them come together. Their “More are being worked on” is a PR appeasement. There is no way they were seriously coming before this Dox event, and if they actually were, then good on them.
There is absolutely no way that NO forethought occurred releasing a Russian tank with technology that is on vehicles that dont have it in game for over 4 years was NOT going to cause an absolute community shit storm. There is no way that this possibility was completely glossed over.
The outrage is acceptable. The doxing and personal attacks are not.
And they are adding them now, because this event happened. I am not condoning this doxing. We could rattle off the thousands of things that are wrong with nato tanks that have had their reports gatekeeped by moderators with internal biases.
6 Likes
Does anyone else experience problems with radars (and sometimes IRST) not maintaining lock at somewhat short distances? I feel like Gaijin broke radars because locking an enemy within visual range will cause the lock to drop after a few seconds for no apparent reason, compared to the live server. Sometimes not even IRST maintains lock despite being within the gimbal limit and range. It’s frustrating because radar missiles outside of BVR are pretty much impossible to use, and using the lead indicator on the HUD of some planes cockpits (like the MiG-29) isn’t working anymore.
I think two mods should sign off on every bug report.
1 Like
Whats this?
Red lines i think
That’s either the biggest model miniature I’ve ever seen, or that woman only weighs like 5 lbs
The one everyone is annoyed with actually follows the rules and denies reports that don’t have enough sources.
The ones people do NOT seem annoyed with are the ones being way too liberal allowing all sorts of things.
So, requiring two people to sign off would make it more likely that the one(s) people don’t like would get their way more often, since they’re the more conservative (even if correct) ones, so you’d actually get the outcome that players dislike MORE often this way.
Meanwhile, none of the mods actually seem to be biased for nation-specific outcomes that I’ve seen. One of them denies things all the time for both NATO AND Russian vehicles, and the Russian forums dislike him as much as English reddit does. The other mods that accept things based on youtube videos for example, do that for both Russian AND NATO tickets…
So overall, your plan: [Doesn’t really reduce the not-very-existent bias] + [Makes players get their way in general less often], kind of confusing why you want to do that.