There’s nothing to nerf.
It’s not mythical either.
Relikt is very real, and protects 54mm per unit.
In your case it was at least angled lol.
It is just a tiny bit better than APCR.
Valentines, Sherman, and maybe the Challenger are good.
Churchill 1 and NA 75 are actually very good. The rest are meh-useless.
You like pain dont you?
It is not bias, just you not understanding how the game works.
Commander sits higher up than the gunner.
Same will happen to a Centurion:
Spoiler
That happens in the vast majority of the cases when the ammo is either/or:
- 2 piece ammo like in soviet 122/125mm or british 120mm
- ammo is modelled in bulks instead of individually piece by piece.
examples:
It has happened with tanks that have single piece individually modelled ammo, but they are very, very rare. I only know about 2 cases with AMX-10RC, a few with M-51s and 1 case with Kpz-70.
Spoiler
YI7j.jpeg)
Then by definition it is not bias.
It is not bias. Even if what you guys descibe only happens to russian tank (which is not true, but let’s pretend for a second), you havent made any argument why the explanation for it is bias instead of all other explanations.
I could make similarly silly claims and for example, “”““prove””“” you italy bias…
Those types or ERA are mainly against HEAT IIRC while soviet ones (Kontakt-5, Relikt, etc) also focus on kinetic.
Against HEAT for example the Challenger 2 TES’ ERA is much better than single layer Relikt.
Spoiler
The most likely explanation is that those tanks are popular, thus you see them more often.
AND
You already know about the saying “russian bias” and thus you subcouncously reinforce it and remember more likely when it happens to a russian vehicle than in any other.
Effectively the same thing happens when “you activate a 500% booster and the game gives you a bad match.”
This is just a combination of confirmation bias and frequency illusion.
APDS and APFSDS has some spall differences. I also noticed that 30mm APDS deals way mrore damage than the same gun firing APFSDS. Likely reason is that APDS tends to be heavier, but this is just a guess on my part.
It is also has to be validated server side.
It is not your computer. If it could influence it then you would see waaaaaaay more often cheats like the famous Nord cheater a year or so ago.
This is what we call “skill issue”.
You have to “pixel snipe” the Driver’s port, lower plate or breech, because those are all just a few pixels in size…
If you destroy the turret ring, they cant turn the turret. If you destroy the breech, they cant shoot. Learn to aim.
You certainly are.
That’s why they have mostly medocre/bad stuff at most BRs…
A friendly remainder that they for 2 years now just straight up delete any reports bug reporting that the italian P40 where not only killing the loader (commander) does not increase the reload time, but even if the whole turret crew is gone the gun still reloads somehow.
What ammo they get is a balancing factor.
Even Spookston confirms the M1s have no spall liners.
You can still aim with the turret basket destroyed by moving your hull.
Just like other nations did.
That’s why it performed usually in the middle range?
Because an autoloader is not a turret basket? What’s next, you tell us that a submarine is not a skyscraper?
These along with all other new modules were added because a bunch of zero skill wallet warriors that bought a nice top tier premium for them after playing 4 battles at reserve tier started crying. They all should be just removed.
Really? Are we looking at the same things in the real world?
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Just like when the same happnes but instead of Kh-38 it is any other non soviet one…
Reply to this from MrBombastic8:
Things like these have happened to non russian tanks as well. You just showed a single cherrypicked example.
Likely explanation is that it detonated on the upper plate. Since it is a HE bmb, it could not pen the upper plate.
Same thing would happen in this case: (not exact comparism but close enough vs a NATO tank)
So what? So does Germany.
How is it mythical?
1 Like
UM2 basically only has armor as it’s pro over M1A1.
Also, I don’t see you performing well in your Swedish T-80U (totally fictional vehicle by the way) even with all that bias installed.
2 Likes
With the Centurion it makes sense, since it is taller and there is more difference between the driver and the commander, but in the T-54 the commander would at least lose his legs.Also, as I said, what happens quite often is that the driver just absorbs all the damage and doesn’t cause any more damage.
Well, then it’s a bug and should be fixed. The only situation where it wouldn’t happen is if you hit the tip of the projectiles, or in any case, the AP ammunition loads with separate bullets, for example when hitting the APDS stored in a Chieftain.
It would really be a yes or no. It’s clear that errors of this type occur to all tanks in the game, since it’s a general programming issue, but there are certain vehicles that benefit somewhat more from these glitches since they happen to them more often.
It is clear that the Russians focused on an ERA with more capabilities against KE, but the ERA of the Challenger 2 TES and EOS should have had some more protection against KE.
Yes, I know, that phrase was a response to another player who mentioned that.
It still sits higher thus gets less shrapnel.
The HEAT jet does not travel further than the gunner. At that point the only thing that can reach the commander is spall. That spall has to go through both the diver and the gunner as well as to travel a long distance.
Regardless, if there is a bias in this damage model then you should be able to find the code responsibel for it. That would be basically a proof that is conclusive. Remember the burden of proof is on YOU.
And it is not not bias. I could “prove” germany bias to you with this “logic” by saying that the Panther’s mantlet is vay more volumetric than idk a Sherman mantlet so that means Germany bias. See how stupid this is?
You either have to show a concrete evidence (code for example) or provide a logical argument that is valid and rules out every other possible explanation.
You did neither.
Why? What is your source?
As I said, what happens sometimes is that the driver stops all the damage, so he does nothing else, he doesn’t kill the shooter or damage anything, it’s not normal that a 400mm HEAT penetration after piercing 100mm at 60º dissipates after killing the driver, and it only happens occasionally, since in other impacts you kill the shooter and even the commander.
I don’t understand the Panter mantlet thing. You shoot him with a cannon with enough penetration in the flattest and most centered area on the side of the mantlet and you kill the shooter.
As far as I know, the damage issue is handled by the game server itself.
There are several reports that mention that the protection of that ERA, which is really a combination of ERA and NERA, should be a little higher, what happens is that gaijin has clung to the fact that since this armor is STANAG 5, they have given him the minimum protection stipulated by this protocol.
1 Like
No, it’s gaijin-magic. Me and my mates have seen this happen when bombing an IS-2 from the front. Its gun and tracks would just snap.
Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 are very survivable. It’s just insane that such tanks are rolling around at 10.3–10.7.
By what logic does damage to the turret bustle disable the horizontal traverse drive?
Spoiler
Is that the new Alvis twink?
That it the point, access to ammo is constrained and adjusted on a case by a case basis to produce similar SL/ hour efficiencies for all vehicles.
It’s also why for example any reports that utilize Historical documentation to build the case; if passed; are “Suggestions” not “Bugs”, even if the behaviors is otherwise erroneous.
Take for example the M1’s “Hydraulic Drive” module,. actually being the Sump Tank not the actual drive, which is not even present on the Engine X-ray module.
24th ofSeptember 2024
Thank you for the report. Forwarded to the devs.
Hornet’s Sting was released 18th of March 2025
175 days went by between these two events(implementing the change took 336 from the surveys completion), the fact that they had the re-model commissioned and just certified it without looking for additional things they could implement at the same time seems like a Horrific misuse of time and money as they aren’t done in house.
Sure The Drive’s report turned up mid way though the implementation period and, who knows when the actual request went out. but then there is the Turret ring’s geometry report, which was Accepted 23rd of December 2023, 115 days before the survey closed so they at very least should have seen that one. Which also wasn’t actioned.
Now, where did I mention Liners, do you not think I chose my words deliberately, to not just include liners?
I’ve previously gone over it so I’ll link to it here, please go read this specific post to catch up, and understand what I’m getting at.
TL,DR; Chobham of which the baseline M1s NERA is evidently based off; contains Plastic layers as part of the composite arrays on the Strike- and Back-face of individual armor plates in the array. And that the elements in the US array are referred to as “Tri-Plate Assemblies”, so are of similar construction.
But they are literally biased. For example, not long ago there was a huge holywar on the Russian forum in the thread about the BM Oplot (for obvious reasons). Ralin (the community bug reporter), the well-known Trickzzter, and a couple of other familiar faces jumped in and started writing how the Oplot is actually trash, that your arguments aren’t real arguments, and that the pictures are just Photoshop or Paint lol. That’s not a literal quote, of course, but the general attitude of the supporters of Russian tech was like that.
So what do you think — when they’re doing their actual job, like handling bug reports, won’t they show the same bias?
I had a Russian Fab-1000k land on my T26E5. It only broke my tracks.
And I mean it landed on the roof
2 Likes
HEAT is inconsistant consistantly. So what?
It already loses half of it’s pen. 100/cos(60) is 200. So the remaining pen is 200mm.
According to the wiki the air has 0.3 CE effectiveness. that means that it should go for another 200/0.3=666.66mm, so basically 0.7m inside the tank.
This is however not what we observe:
These are rough estimates. The shells the gun use are Fixed QF 100 × 695 mmR so by rough estimates using the shells as refercnce the jet travels about 1m or so inside. So that appears to be only for spaced armor and not when it just travels inside the tank.
Anyway, the jet barely reaches the gunner, and the spall cone for this type of shell is very narrow. That combined with the fact that the commander is not only a bit above, but also offset to the side means that it gets less shrapnel sometimes.
Now about the driver eating all the spall. Yes that happens, but also on other tanks too.
You noticing it more often is due to various factors:
- T-54/55s are very common tanks, thus you will see this effect more than in other tanks even if those others have the same chance of this happening.
- Not many other tanks have similar armor scheme, effective thickness and crew layout. This is basically only on the Cents, T54/55s, Leo 1s, and OF-40, the latter 2 have very thin armor allowing the jet to travel further.
- You only remembering (or remembering more often) when it happens to a russian tank doue to your own bias.
Even if we agree to an extreme scenario like this:
It ONLY happens to T-54/55 tanks and it happens to them every single time.
Even if that is observable that is NOT proving bias, since there are other explanations, some are more likely than another. But unless you can show that there is some code in the simulation that is different for those tanks than for others, or unless you can form an argument that shows that bias is the most likely cause, then you just cant use this as a proof, since you just made an observation.
This is like thinking that the popularity of the name Stevie and Lululemon's stock price has anythign to do with each other based on this graph:
Generally yes, but there are countless cases when even the perfect shot will just do nothing.
And then if you just miss even by a bit you will likely do nothing.
It is on both ends. The server validates it so you cant just cheat. But you can literally just disconnect from the internet while you are in the armor inspector and can simulat shots just fine. That means that the code is there locally on your computer.
So if it is in spec then what is the issue?
Also, i asked for your source which you have not provided.
Lastly, if the protection should be “a little higher” then i dont think it would matter. Of course, if it is actually incorrect in game then it needs to be fixed, which it likely will happen at some point.
Btw, is this issue reported?
It is not. Things sometimes survive things they should not. You just talk about a cherrypicked example.
Which it likely happened.
They have big and easy to hit weak spots as well as no reverse speed and slow reload with poor gun handling.
Idk, by jamming it?
The reason it was added was because trash players were complaining instead of learning to play. As i said before those modules should be removed.
Okay i misunderstood what you meant.
Those are not the devs. They are just staff members.
Do you have actual evidence for their bias?
If you had followed the thread, you would have realized that no one called the oplot garbage, so this is likely your own bias.
They sacrificed a lot to have K5 at that BR.
Tradeoffs…
2 Likes
“Bias” doesn’t exist, yep sure.
“The source does not contain any information about the use of these missiles on the AH-64E.
Reports like this require direct proofs, not guesswork.”
So, the AH-64E gets stuck firing Missiles that are between 3 and 4 decades old, makes sense when Missiles that are half as old needed to be reconditioned with a life-extension program to be returned to service.
If i guessed correctly the tank and the ammo type…its difficult but with some bad luck possible though to happen …
Why do you think it’s because of desynchronization?
Well, very well, we will have to apply the same philosophy to the entire game.
Oh wow you didn’t put together report correctly that’s not your fault ofc it’s must be Russian Bias
3 Likes
Do I seriously need to prove that a vehicle in game can use systems that are already implemented?
and besides how is;
- Launcher Fires two Basic , Reprogrammable Micro-Processor (RMP) or RMP Block I Missiles; No Missile Modifications required"
Somehow not clear enough?
Was proof needed to add the FIM-92K to The Ocelot for example? have the Germans even acquired any, or the SUVL even rated for them?
and beside the link from the -92E and -92J / -92K was there
And if the slight lack of sourcing on the remanufacture of the -92K was too much, just omit the -92K from the internal report, and solely mention the -92C &-92E as referenced in the report.