What’s more, Soviet tanks don’t have weak spots even where you can clearly see them with your own eyes.
And of course, there’s the magical Soviet ERA in the game too. I think only the blind wouldn’t notice the Russian bias here.
tbf, ERA is just coding laziness bias. If any other country had era like top tier ussr, they’d basically act the same way.
Like ERA at 0 degrees protects up to 100mm of pen, and at higher angles grow upwards to 400-600mm, Combine that with overlapping/Corners of era and its just a cluster fck.
Basically same laziness with Hesh except it actually has a benefit.
2 Likes
So much laughable that M247 bug still exist.
You have stated that vulnerablities from soviet tank’s have been removed
Oh damn really ? That is not the rule applied to every one ?
Spoiler
Too bad that blow out panels magical too.
1 Like
You seem to have a hard time understanding the first time. This isn’t a vulnerability of Soviet tanks — it’s a vulnerability of all tanks.
Why did you ignore the examples with the 127 mm and 200 mm gun mantlets? Well, actually, we both know why.
What exactly is the problem with blowout panels?
This is when M60 was added and now when the 127mm mantlet was applied ?
Because it’s fixed.
After the cook off crew doesn’t exit the vehicle and fire doesn’t destroy tank.
No way isn’t that your statement that soviet vulnerabilities has been removed ?
1 Like
It’s actually so easy to test in game.
Oh, that was quite a story. They added it in 2016 with that ridiculous mantlet that could be penetrated by the T-34-85 gun.
Spoiler
To fix this, a thread with proof was created on the old forum, but Gaijin didn’t respond at all. It got to the point where someone went to a museum, found the gun with the mantlet, and measured it with a tape measure, providing evidence.
But it didn’t help. Moreover, subsequent M60A1 modifications were added with the same thin mantlet. Eventually, they fixed it, but that was only in 2020.
Regarding the Challenger 2 — I don’t remember the exact dates, but it also took several years, and in the heat of the dispute over this ridiculous 200 mm thick mantlet detail, someone posted a secret document with the armor details on the forum, lol.
No, because Gaijin never did anything like that with Soviet armored vehicles. Although I did come across a case where they stuffed an extra armor part inside the IS-6, making it practically impossible to penetrate.
Nonsense. If the gunner turns the turret away, then in real life the tank would be able to move on its own. Besides, it’s a basic game mechanic, like an engine repaired in 30 seconds.
Not mine, open your eyes and read carefully. I stated that there were no such cases at all for Soviet equipment.
2024/25 keeps on proving that bias isn’t a thing.
3 Likes
Why in one side is game mechanic in other horrible bias.
Ammo compartment will be inoperable and fire could get into crew compartment.
Now you stating that dev were adding real vulnerabilities to soviet tanks and fixing fake one on western tech.
Which is contradicting your previous statement
1 Like
Because the magical reactive armor, which in the game protects the tank from everything it shouldn’t, gives you an unfair gameplay advantage. And game mechanics don’t grant such advantages.
As far as I remember, the manual does not recommend the crew to leave the tank within the first one and a half minutes after the blowout panels activate.
What nonsense are you talking about?
Magical ERA thats reflected in the game’s BR system. Again for the 100th time in this thread, do you really think if ERA didn’t perform like it did russian tanks wouldn’t drop ~0.7 BR instantly? I don’t get your thought process here.
4 Likes
Soviet win rate sit’s at 40~% right now at 10.0-12.0 bracket by Wt data and Statshark what happend if this will be implented ? And i don’t know how true that autor claims is he didn’t come with any valid proofs.
My mistake i mean IS-6 armor plate has been removed, T-54-49 mask has been fixed and Yak-28B falres has been removed that doesn’t fit the removing vulnerabilities.
1 Like
I’d love for you to prove that Kontakt and Relikt ERA can’t protect from HEAT projectiles…
Cause it sure isn’t protecting from APFSDS in-game as it shouldn’t, thus your post has to be mentioning its protection against HEAT.
Relikt on the side has a whole 54mm of effective protection:
2 Likes
Why would that be? As far as I know, the Challenger 2 is the weakest top-tier MBT, yet it’s still at 12.0.
There’s a whole list of proofs under the post.
This isn’t removing vulnerabilities, it’s nerfing invulnerabilities, lol. You probably find it hard to understand the difference.
1 Like
It also doesn’t have 5 degrees of gun depression, 4km reverse, 7 sec reload etc.
1 Like
No that’s a wall of text without any conclusion.
This is sophistry time has proven that your statement doesn’t fit with facts
1 Like
But it has weak armor, poor mobility, and slow reload speed.
1 Like
Spoiler
Источники:
- Конструкция сердечника подкалиберного снаряда // Европейский патент EP 2597416A2 заявка 12193724.7 от 22.11.2012
- Устройство высокочувствительной взрывной реактивной защиты // Евразийский патент № 006672, заявка 200301266 от 03. 07. 2003
- Боевая машина поддержки танков. С. А. Гусев. Вестник бронетанковой техники, №7. 1991 г
- НТК БТВТ ГАБТУ МО РФ, доклад на конференции ВТТВ Омск 2002 «Основные проблемы существующего парка бронетанкового вооружения и военной техники и направления его совершенствования на среднесрочную перспективу».
- Маркачев Е. В., Рототаев Д. А., Чубаров В, Д. Возбуждение детонации ВВ в составе динамической защиты при воздействии бронебойного подкалиберного снаряда // Вестник бронетанковой техники
- Танкостроение: состояние и перспективы, г. Нижний Тагил» / Нижнетагильский технологический институт (филиал) УГТУ – УПИ, 2007.
- Диков С. А., Растопшин М. М., Лукьяница А. А., Почкин С. А. Преодоление динамической защиты танка без детонации взрывчатого вещества // Вестник бронетанковой техники
You’re talking nonsense again.
No lol, its the T-72B3A.
1 Like
You could also spawn a loaded ATGM heli as your first spawn…