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?
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.
“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.
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.
Sure, it’s totally just that right, see where it says ATAS, and AH-64E(V6)
Also do you really think that missiles have a shelf life of 30 years, -92A’s ceased production in ‘87, and -92Es’ as evidenced have needed to undergo reconditioning for an an expected lengthening by only 10 years, of which started production in 1995, and the conditioning process in 2014 only 19 years later.
There are improved Igla missiles as well as Stinger missiles.
All, without exception, modern helicopters should use the best versions of self-defense missiles they can use.
Proxy-warhead AAMs should be on helicopters whenever possible at minimum.
He calling it’s an evidence of Russian bias which makes it manipulation to make his wishes to happen i know the guy who for long time trying to convince devs to add R-27R for Su-39 the change should not effect balance at that br. but devs refuse.
So we have 2 examples and claiming that bias goes for the guy who in the same position really shows that he definitley, absolutley, without a doubt want’s special treatment.
So again, where is the flaw in the documentation here? and besides The report if you read it makes reference to
“the ATAL (Air to Air Stinger Launcher) equipt Rotorcraft (such as the AH-64E) are able to be loaded with more modern variants of the FIM-92 Stinger, than the FIM-92A.”
It’s in no way specific to the AH-64E or even the Apache, many aircraft & nations have access to the ATAL, so it’s not really special treatment in any way.
Im not talking about report flaw tech moderators can twist reports how ever they can im saying that you claiming it’s Russian bias shows that you want preferential treatment
