So where is M829A3 / M829A4, XM943, M1147? I’d certainly like to get access to these superior rounds for the 120mm L/44 gun in order to have a similar effect against Russian armor that 3BM42 (let alone 3OF26, or 3BM60) has on any of the M1A1 or “Same Exact Protection” variants.
If it was an actual issue why did the M10 Booker still use M900(A1)? wouldn’t you expect that a new round that has similar ERA bypass mechanics to M829A3 or -A4 be developed; If it was projected to be an issue. It is after all, only armed with a 105mm gun, as a Light Tank, not a 120mm.
is the Baseline M1 vs T-80B for some reason not comparable? Since they both reside at 10.7, yes? I’m really not feeling the superior firepower in any respect.
None of which are 105mm, yeah. It’s going to be pretty hard to convince Gaijin that they can be loaded into the M68A1 cannon.
So the Booker (and Airborne units) aren’t expected to potentially encounter Modern MBTs, or anything else with ERA as a threat in any potential scenario in which they could conceivably be employed?
3BM60 is down there too. or does the 2S25M not count because it’s a light tank? 3BM42 is at 9.3 with the 2S25 too.
Is it somehow not expected that Cannon Lights & TD have some benefit to their sub par armor.
You finally sees it lol so what’s unusual things about ammunition of different caliber at the same br? ru vehicles in many br has one of the worst ammunition yet people can let it slide.
3BM60 at 12.7 vs DM53/M829A2/KEW-A2 | Ok, this is how it should be bro
3BM25/3BM3 at 9.0 vs M774/DM23/DM33 | Ok, this is how it should be bro no issue
3BM42 at 10.3 vs M829A1 | no issue bro 120s is tutel, slow ass hehe
Because it’s not actually bad when compared to the amour schema that threat systems have. and it’s not like the higher performance 125mm Soviet shells would change things at even extended ranges that can be found in WT. Where as making M900, M829A3 / -A4, DM73 / -83, etc. more available would most definitely impact the UFP/ Turret cheeks of threat systems at said BRs.
There is a reason why M829A3 & -A4 appeared in the late 90’s & early 00’ and it’s not because -A2 was doing okay.
What exactly is slinging M774 at 9.0(found it, M60A3 TTS)? Pretty sure best US gets otherwise is M735 and that’s bugged(and still erroneously has an identical penetrator to the XM578E1 found at 8.7, not 578E4 like it should).
Also don’t mistake 105mm DM23 / -33 for 120mm DM23 & -33. There is a significant difference in performance.
The M60-120S is of course based on an M60 chassis, a T-55 can outmaneuver it. There is a reason why it compensates with a good ammo.
M774 at point-blank doesn’t even approach the relative performance of 3BM42 until about 3km. Do you not see the issue especially when asked to somehow deal with even better protected threats.
Sure it did, an M829A1 might I add, and what did the T-80UD suffer from? A disabled autoloader full of ammo that somehow doesn’t cook off like how it happens in real life, and a fire that can be put out immediately. It just stays in the fight like nothing happened.
How convenient that Russian tanks have this bleeding edge armor technology that somehow surpasses anything that’s offered by their counterparts, even the Chobham/Dorchester armor array which is said to be the best protection offered for MBTs, and never mind the fact that NATO tanks in real life have never needed additional ERA armor for sufficient protection against KE threats unlike Soviet/Russian tanks which really tells you everything you need to know in this matter, but of course it’s easy to dismiss these clear indicators by hiding behind the fact that western tank armor information is “classified”. Even if the exact numbers aren’t available, the armor values for western tanks in game could have been better adjusted to reflect their real life performance. Doing otherwise is simply selective realism and it doesn’t help the Russian bias allegations from the community.
See, there’s the problem. NATO tanks in real life only ever used add-on ERA for additional protection against threats such as ATGMs and RPGs which are all HEAT rounds. NATO tanks historically never needed additional protection against KE threats in the form of ERA, because their built-in armor has always been more than sufficient. Which means Chobham armor array for example, has numerous layers of specialized composite material that shatters/destabilizes kinetic rounds such as APFSDS, and has internal backing plates to catch any spall in case of a full penetration. Additionally, western tanks are supposed to have spall-suppressing construction, which utilizes aluminum alloy liners or high-toughness steel in the hull sides and internal bulkheads which deforms in a specific way upon being hit and reduces spalling. This should be a more than enough number of evidence and indicators that NATO tanks should simply have better protection in game than they currently do, but instead we get more and more unbalanced vehicles and dubious protection features for Russian tanks. How that helps the game be more fair and enjoyable for everyone, I have no idea.
That would be because NATO tanks have highly advanced composite armor arrays that provide KE protection which their Russian counterparts can only match with add-on ERA. But it would never be reflected in game because “hurr durr classified” while they keep adding unbalanced features of dubious origin to Russian tanks, which are conveniently NOT regarded as “marketing lies”.
NATO tanks never had to rely on add-on ERA blocks for KE protection IRL, why do you think that would be the case? Surely not because western composite armor ACTUALLY provides better KE protection without needing external ERA?
12 10.7 GRB games + 2 12.7 GRB games played. 3 wins, among them 1 alongwith Russia.
So Russia got 11 + 1 = 12 wins out of 14 games = 85.71% winrate for Russia.
It’s like that since months, probably years.
What’s the point of playing this game NATO side if you’re gonna loose 80% of your games ? People will leave this game at some point, it is not balanced.
EDIT : pretty sure their “official” winrates are rigged. 50% winrate for 10.7 NATO ? Nobody believes that.
If your round didn’t hit ammo, then why would ammo cook off?
Either way.
80 - 100mm from the ERA, any amount if it hit a return roller, 120mm from side armor, a lot from the fuel tank, and then it hit the bottom of the autoloader which has a ton of armor itself.
Spall. The problem has never been ammo not properly cooking off when hit. The problem is that the carousel is thick enough to protect the ammo from spall but it doesnt create any spall inside of it when hit.
Spalling and fragmentation is notorious for not detonating ammo in War Thunder across ALL tanks, without exception. This has never changed.
Because ammo has hitpoints.
@Zahltag out here claiming NATO is Russia by claiming defending NATO is defending Russia.
Oh well, I’ll keep defending NATO and reality.
And if you don’t want to be seen as someone claiming NATO is Russia, maybe just state the facts of them defending NATO.
Especially since I have zero posts anywhere defending Russia.
“Alvis, I think you’re defending NATO equipment too much.”
