They do ?
1 Like
In other news and displaying a complete lack of bias or dodgy judgement, all NATO blow-out panels have been arbitrarily nerfed. As in, they no longer work.
One really does have to wonder if this change would be made if Russian vehicles had blow-out panels…
- And no, yeeting the turret 300 feet into the air isn’t a blow-out panel.
2 Likes
Just another typical example…
Oh yes the M1A1 a 40 year old tank. Im referencing the T90s thier newest tanks still do it .
Like the CR2… two years ago?
1 Like
If you meen, taking hit after hit and keep moving foreward… yeah, they do that
just because the turret of a T series tank flies higher, dosent mean that the CR2 is any better
It tends to keep it’s crew alive, which is quite useful. The same for Abrams, Leopard, Leclerc. The whole point of things like blow out panels, armoured stowage, etc. is to ensure that you allow the crew a decent chance to escape. A delay of even a few seconds before an ammunition explosion or fire takes hold can save people. Both CR2 crews survived the destruction of their Challengers - allowing them to live and fight another day.
The same cannot be said for the T-72 or T-80.
1 Like
You misunderstand.
Something like a CR2, Leopard 2, Abrams can still be set on fire, it’s ammunition can ignite and cook off and yes, blast the turret off it’s ring. However, the time between being penetrated, ammunition beginning to burn, then explosion is greatly increased. The Soviet method of having the entire magazine stuffed under the turret - without separation from the crew or blow out panels - means that penetration/fire/explosion happens almost instantly.
Both crews got out of their Challengers as far as I know. That tells us that the turret didn’t blast off as soon as the vehicle was struck.
2 Likes
Why are we talking about the Challenger 2 when talking about blowout panels? It doesn’t have any, and the propellant charges are in the hull. That’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the Challenger 2.
Depends entirely on when the charges cook off. We know that the first Chally 2 lost in Ukraine had its crew survive and picked up by a Bradley, yet the turret was visibly off the turret ring in videos showing the aftermath.
1 Like
Because it’s made in the west everything made in the west have plot armor in their heads.
1 Like
The Soviet tech tree currently has zero fake tanks.
The spall liner is on T-90M, and its accurately placed.
The ammo detonation bug has been fixed.
The in-game T-series tanks throw turrets into space when penned.
After this update I think we can all agree there definitely some Russian bias in the game, just look at the T-84 Oplot and the T-80BVM, both are the finest Russian/Soviet tank you can found in the world but just because Oplot is not a russian vehicle then every documentation that can shown the vehicle they make is wrong will not passed or just simply “not a bug”
2 Likes
BVM is not the best Soviet tank in the Soviet tech tree.
It trades a lot of armor for a bit more mobility and a better ERA package on just the hull.
Oplot in comparison has more combined armor than BVM while being more mobile, despite the steel plate between the ERA groups not being in the protection analysis.
T-80U even has marginally more armor than BVM, because while T-80U has a different ERA package on the hull, it makes up for that by a 60 - 80% stronger turret.
1 Like
T-90M i’m presuming you are equating real world performance.
Isn’t facing the threats in the real world that it can face and survive in warthunder.
I’m yet to see a video of a T-90M absorb a side shot at 200m from a Leopard 2A7 or a Brimstone to the turret face with minimal damage. But you my friend are equating T-90M bouncing the odd HEAT/HE projectile is not the same.
T-90M has not excelled it has performed fine, Relikt has not been this miracle armour Gaijin model it as.
Overall T-90M is overperforming in game.
Were you looking at the overall or monthly statistics? In my tank battle, only the US remains the worst.
You play too much War thunder, CR2 is superior to the majorirty of Russian tanks.
Greater real world mobility
Greater accuracy and on the move gunnery
Superior Optics and FCS system
Greater crew protection and survivability
Ergonomics
Armour is similar we are comparing CR2 with a T-90M obr 22 a small lower plate is not a weakeness when you are shooting from 3km away.
These are what matter on a tank in the real world
Russian tank ethos had (it is changing now) not evolved, British tank ethos has been since the end of WW2 shoot further, shoot more accurately and increase the likelihood of a 1 shot one kill.
In tests and competitions T-84 always performed poorly compared to NATO tanks. But
This is without taking crew quality into consideration.
Future NATO tanks only increase the gap, DM-63 is none combustible, it doesn’t burn or cook off.
Superior smart ammunition
And increases in Optics/FCS and overall lethality.
There is a reason Russia wanted to build T-14. They are falling behind the West and even the East with Chinese and Korean tanks superceding them.
1 Like
Challenger 2 is one of the worst tanks of the NATO standard, in terms of survivability and it is not better than the Russian tanks because it also has no ammunition protection, just look at certain images of a certain conflict that I will not mention, but it is also worth mentioning its weight that limits it in difficult terrains.
4 Likes
Yes the vehicle was destroyed and they have been but the crew get out. Something we rarely see on Russian tanks.
Yes in that conflict there have been losses, the nation operating them has used them and all their tanks poorly even the excellent 2A6 and STRV 122B
In a world where you are guaranteed to get hit, a drone, laser guided artillery a mine. Would you rather be in a tank that just explodes or a tank that burns gives the crew time to bail out and then explodes after it has burned for awhile
Everything gets stuck in that kind of mud
T-90M is put against (theoretically) against M1A1/CR2/Leopard 2A4/5/6 (pritty much the same tanks that are in its br range in WT)… but for now do video of a 1 on 1 “duel”… the only thing comming close is vidoe of Leopard 2A4 ambushing T-72B(3?)… and the T-72 absorbed 2 hit before it was teken out… becous it turned around and it was shot in the rear…
Damn… why this never happen when to my T-90M… always in some mythical games… when my T-90M is hit on the weakspots (LFP, drivers port, side, rear) it explode every time… strange…
Hitting the most armored part of a tank, covered with coposit and ERA (designet to defeat shaped chargers) with a shapecharge ATGM, leave it with minimal damage… gasp… shock…
Sorce… thrust me bro…