Broken you say…
Again “broken”…
womp womp
more like pipe-dream on your side… but regardless I have the feeling that it doesn’t matter how much facts me or any other posting here, present to you it will be in vain. The prejudice/propaganda/blind hatred/excuse for a skill issue is soo deeply ingrained in you to the point of no return.
You say that but then completely ignore the fact that both DM53 and M829A2 have been superseded in service by more modern rounds IRL ( of which the assumed reduction of effective range at combat ranges which is why M829A2 was replaced by -A3 in short order), which conveniently aren’t implemented in game (for obvious reasons). Neither is the simulation implementing ERA bypass elements, or probably using proper estimations for ERA effectiveness with any level of certainty.
And if they actually wanted to properly model things it’s not like it’s not like models (see chapter 4 of the following text) don’t exist either.
Ok. Before the blows off-topic, I used exaples that are in game… in order to prove that the armor/ERA does not overperform (not to the amount that the “Much rusSian bIAs” crowd claim to be, after all I’m well aware that those simulations does not represent what might actualy happen IRL… btw neither the article that you posted… its all theoretical)
Well at least the textbook readily provides relevant references to technical papers and other bodies of work to back up the “claims” it makes.
It also provides numerous models and goes though explaining every step of the process or links back to it in-line. In sufficient detail that a working model could be created especially if various assumptions are permitted to be made (that are made elsewhere to lighten the computational load).
Also if you do follow up a lot of the referenced material you will find are linking empirical results back to models like these, as using explosives to form metals isn’t some big secret but is used in a number of civil applications.
the ERA overperforms since it doesn’t lose effectiveness when the approach angle approaches the normal, genius. this simulation doesn’t invalidate that
I’ts all fine and dandy, but how is this disproving the simulations?
WTF???
sorry, ‘ERA work less good when bullet come not at angle’
sorce: trust me bro?
By that “logic” all ERA (Israely/US/British not just Russian) is overperforming… or is just the russina?
Relikt performs like trash in-game if you shoot it at a non-angle.
It’s already modeled.
There’s a reason ERA bags exist, so that ERA blocks can be angled cheaply.
And yes, I know you consider all NATO sources garbage.
Even if ERA gets gutted and all the T series get moved down it would be the same story with people complaining about Russian bias. “Why am I fighting the bvm/t90m in my 2a4/kvt???” Meanwhile t90a is 11.0 with 3bm60 (I liked it tbh, but the MM was extremely kind and gave me nothing but downtiers).
Never going to win, russia will always be the boogeyman for players.
source : knowing how flyer plate ERA works
i know that’s a non starter for you even though you depend on it
and alvis you can stop writing to me i don’t read your garbage, honest
I’m actually interested in the topic if you want to go into detail, im not just trying to waste your time on a gotcha after you go through the effort of explaining why its overperforming in game. Although im sure you are going to disagree with me on them going down in BR if they become as well protected as the ariete as a consequence.
It’s almost like the Leopards combine good armor with good mobility and firepower, which makes them meta.
Meanwhile the T-90M combines good armor with mediocre firepower and mobility.
…
4km reverse at 12.0 isn’t mediocre its vile. It adds literal seconds to hill peaks, or peeking around corners. Makes quick repositioning nearly impossible outside of meme stuff like popping smoke and turning around.
Mobility is acceleration forward reverse, and hull traverse.
Mediocre is an apt description of T-90M mobility.
Challenger 2, T-90M, Aretes, and potentially Merkavas though I can’t state that myself.
Considering how 2A7s are a straight upgrade to BVM, I’d say that the 2A6 was a decent counterpart.
In fact, BVM never dominated as 122s were added before BVM was a thing.
Had a laugh.
No one from RL can fail when the game has internal tools to balance vehicles, such as BR.
What am i reading? are you trying to refute something, if is coming up with a coherent sentence expressing your objections too hard?
Except it’s not. it’s okay at it’s BR. it was bad before they buffed the fire rate.
how about you include the full quote so it’s possible to tell what you’re referring too? or are you so used to selectively cropping quotes that being dishonest is just second nature?
If you’re talking about the M1, gaijin deliberately underestimating it is as well documented as them saying that the lack of evidence (which all top tier tanks suffer from) means that they have to guess, and they guess that it’s armour is really shit.
All the F4Us handle like crap and are generally not good fighters, that most of them have garbage .50s makes them worse.
I was in utter shock, so I did indeed have difficulties forming coherent sentences.
The M4A1 is the best vehicle at it’s BR of any nation, so when someone claims it’s mediocre I can’t help but be baffled.
And for a basic comparison, I’ll just use the Pz IV’s at 3.3:
I’ve been consistently playing it since release and have 2000 kills with the thing, a nearly 5 - 1 K/D and over 3 kills per match average.
The M1A1 provides the player with absolutely everything they could possibly need to dominate matches: It’s got fantastic mobility, incredible firepower, first class gun handling, decent survivability, 50. cals, ESS + Thermals trick, large ready rack, etc. etc. And it has always had a tendency to get down-tiers rather than up-tiers. In a downtier is nothing short of godlike.
So when someone comes by and calls it ‘‘Okay’’ or ‘‘Bad previously’’ I’m left with two conclusions:
There’s nothing else to the qoute.
You claimed that the M1A1’s armour is underperforming, so I’m simply asking if you could provide me with sources that support your position.
So, can you?
I’m talking F4U-1a specifically here, not any of the others.
The F4U-1a is among the all-time most overpowered and undertiered fighters in the entire game. It’s flight performance at 2.7 allows it to effortlessly seal club nearly anything it meets. As long as people have a basic understanding of how to fly the thing you can easily get a 50 - 1 K/D with it.
Sometimes the term gets over-used, but I can’t think of anything else less applicable here: Skill issue.
I.E., here’s my nephew’s stats in it:
Not just you have conveniently turnd off the camera angle so UFP on leopard appers that cannot be penetrated (it can) but also you dont have the tanks in scale… So even if the weakspots appers to be a the same size, the forntal area of the T-80 is in comparison to Leoparde roughly 20% smaller, therefore weakspots are roughly 20% smaller…