Will quote reply to this real quick because both kron’s and soyuz’s guns are pretty much a fictional wet dream design wise.
They operate at unsustainable operating pressures and would nominally always shatter their projectiles on targets if they even can get remotely accurate fire downrange.
Their incredible performance is due to their ludicrous MV which would not be sustainable IRL, with those barrels wearing our comically fast due to their absurd operating pressure and MV. EG Russia found the barrels would only last on average about 150 rounds, by comparison a similarly overgassed gun, the british 16"/45 would last 350 rounds, or the Mark 7 of the USN lasting between 290 to 350 rounds, or after upgrades in excess of 1500 rounds.
However, due to WT not simulating any of those issues, those things are functionally just wunderwaffe.
Its the same deal with Russian thin wall SAP, those rounds would normally shatter and fail to fuse on almost everything due to their flimsily construction, but, of course, since WT does not model shell failures, its not a issue.
Reading this thread makes me glad I stuck to low tier. Sure the vehicles up there look cool but everything surrounding them is insufferable (same deal with 5th gen jet discussion).
Yes, yet, the Russian designers themselves admitted at length that the guns had flaws, namely their barrel life and MV being so high causing both accuracy and shell issues.
Check navweaps for yourself.
I never defended said round, I don’t think it should have been added tbh, the maus was fine as is.
I said such in the next line that you outright quoted.
Just like the R-2X series missiles being reliable.
Yes, and such a change would stop SAP from being so prolific and make people use the right rounds for the right job instead of just slinging whatever has the most filler 99% of the time in naval.
Okay, so? was it capable of firing at that velocity? if yes, then it’s fine.
I am asking your source, so either you provide it or you just might as well make it up.
I never said you defended it. You just dont cry about it, yet it is the exact same situation as another shell about which you cry.
Bit hard to see after you edited in a bunch of stuff. At least clearly mark the parts where you made the edits.
Is it even in game?
They already do that xd. Yeah good luch using the “shell with the most filler” onto anything that has some armor…
Stock battleship experiences with most of them using stock HE is truly painful since they will struggle often against heavy, or in some cases against light cruisers when APHE (or SAP) will just ammo rack them if you can aim.
Quote - "According to Russian sources, during trials in 1940 it was recommended that the designed MV be increased to 2,854 fps (870 mps) since the barrel wear was less than expected. However, this is a significantly higher MV than contemporary large caliber guns and I have doubts that the resulting barrel life would have been much, if any, over 150 rounds. "
From Nathun Okun of the FACEHARD program.
Then why bring it up?
And I don’t support either being the way they are so your point is moot.
R-2X stands for the missiles of the R-2X series of missiles such as the R-23, R-24, and R-27.
They very much so do not.
131 mm 60 degree pen, can reliably paddle anything short of another BB in the game without issue, 75.85k RE, second to none, only rivaled by the other Russian thin walled SAP and 380mm BFHE Germany has which is also insane.
Outright pushing purpose built 356mm AP round performance with a 35.04kg filler
No, because you here cried about only one initially, in a thread abour russian bias, so the logical conclusion is that you think it means russian bias, but not other nation bias for the other stuff…
Otherwise you would be talking about broadly, like referring to every incorrect/unrealistic module, shell, vehicle instead of focusing on one nation.
Thx.
Maybe the trash players use bad shells, but good players will use the correct shells for the correct enemy type (excluding stock ships of course since they have no choice).
Yep and all it does is deal about 15-20% hitpoint, i mean “crew” damage with knocking out some turrets or engine on cruisers. Meanwhile you shoot them with APHE and you pretty much 1shot them.
Whenever i was playing with the russian battleships/battlecruisers (Izmail and the other similar ships) that for battleships/battlecruisers have very weak armor and an enemy battleship was spamming HE at me i literally didnt care.
Also, 131mm 60 deg pen? Yeah, at 1km… Do you know the realistic engagement distances? it’s about 10km or more, but it rarely is less than 7-8km…
But hey, you can take your Wyoming to a custom match against my same BR battleship, you shoot HE while i shoot APHE at you and we will see what happens.
There are 5 other SPAA platforms that are “Buk equivalent” for the purposes of CAS’s maximum capability.
It’s not just Buk.
And it was never Pantsir, and Pantsir is not the only radar SACLOS SPAA.
Relikt only protecting 54mm in-game isn’t “dubious” it’s normal.
Buk and LMUR are only to be cited when admitting Russian bias does not exist as they are examples of fairness.
Thin mild steel not spalling is not special treatment for Soviet tanks, it’s universal among all tech trees.
@ARK_BOI
USSR has many lineups that are higher BRs than China equivalent lineups.
ZTZ-96 is faster than T-64B, fires a 3BM42 equivalent round, and is T-72A in armor. It’s 9.3 while the slower T-64B is 9.7.
ZTZ-96A has gen 2 thermals, fires a 3BM42 equivalent round, is faster than T-72s… it’s 10.3. Soviets don’t even get gen 1 thermals at that BR on an MBT.
China has 3BM60 equivalent round, gen 2 thermals, and among the highest mobility tanks at 11.3. Imagine if the Soviet tech tree got a well armored gen 2 thermal highly mobile MBT that fires 3BM60 at 11.3. The forum would riot if Soviets were treated that way.
Yeah its 90% win rate because for like 2 years you could yolo in a bvm and spawn Kh38mt and auto win games. It has nothing to do with the tanks performance, while its good, its nowhere as good as the leopard or the other tanks I put on my list. Due to many reasons that I’ve listed many times before. You are just very ignorant and argumentative on a topic that you have shocking little knowledge of, put the fries in the bag sir. Also just have to add, america has historically bad teams overall, tanks are good teams are not. I play a lot of games solo, so this reflects that well, you have terrible win rates with america you know how bad it is, my 77% win rate should be proof that its the player and the tank completely carrying the team right?
As for the whole line up compared to the tank, yes russias line up is very strong and has been for a long time. But arguably france was better since the rafale came out, and for a while germany was OP, not to mention sweden. Russia was only the undisputed top meta for like a couple months until IRST came out. I wouldnt say that the game “favors” russia, they have A LOT of pitiful tanks and planes. But in general I wouldn’t say the game is bias’d to russia in so much as making them broken in pursuit of some nationalistic pride. They make a lot of content for russia because the player base is mostly russians, its really just that simple.
“Pantsir could barely counter old FnF helicopters that had 8km missiles. Nowadays against things like 64E with 16km missiles it’s pretty much useless.”
“The “RU tanks are easier to play” parroting is years old by this point. No one realizes they have by far the most flaws that directly impacts bad players.”
Just two recent examples I could quote - can’t be bothered to find more but since you arrive on every RU thread without fail to tell us your woes I’m sure there are more. Remind me, did you type the above comments?
Whenever I see you or Oh No Gameplay typing I get a certain theme tune coming to mind…
I mean this is somewhat true. A decent player (I’m not talking about a Lennox caliber player) in something like a AH-60 could easily roflstomp the Pantsir.
And what there tells you I said their vehicles are terrible ?
You have some reading comprehension.
AAs as a whole not being able to counter FnF helicopters is true, Pantsir is just one of many which suffered that fate.
Also, if something is easier/harder to play doesn’t mean vehicle as a whole is terrible.
So again, do find me where RU mains were saying RU vehicles are terrible.
But it is bad, just like any other AA.
Against LDIRCM helicopters that can sling off FnF missiles at 10km+ is indeed mostly useless, just like other AAs.
Pantsirs die because they are focussed on something else. Not because the system is bad.
No player is “good enough” to defeat a Pantsir while trying to sling slow ass laser guided Hellfires.
Pantsir has loads of missiles an amazing Radar, smoke grenades…pop smoke and the Pantsir is effectively immune.
Equal skill Pantsir wins 3/5 times
take a kid on energy drinks, with another tab open while scrolling tiktok then yeah that heli is going to win 95% of the time.
Now though with the Radar control screen nothing can “sneak” up on SAMs
