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
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.
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:
Mobility? M4A1.
Firepower? M4A1.
Gun handling? M4A1.
Survivability? Tied.
Armour? M4A1.
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:
They’ve never played it themselves and they’re just repeating what they’ve heard someone else say.
They’re awful at the game.
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.
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…
It cannot and it is an extremely common misunderstanding, so common in fact that I created a helpful chart to explain why:
Disabling ‘‘Consider Vertical Angle’’ is the correct choice.
If you wish and you’re still not convinced, you can get a buddy in a Leopard 2A7V, load up the Cargo Port map and head on over to the Eastern side of the map, test it out yourself there and you’ll notice how a single APFSDS round in the entire game will penetrate that area.
Only areas where the 3BM60 can penetrate the 2A7’s hull are LFP and the area around the driver’s port. Anywhere else it just results in either a non-penetration or a ricochet.
