Thats the roof armour, of course its going through?
I know, they happen in insanely quick succession however, wouldn’t the momentum of the flyer plate still be going through the secondary jet?
Survivability buffs I assume? Also dude, its a video game, I’m putting forward a suggestion for the tanks I play to be on par with MBTs such as the Strv 122 and Leopard 2. The other issue with reload times is that there’s no standard NATO reload time, every human is different even with the standards they have to achieve to qualify, fatigue is also not accounted for in-game.
Ok, but neither is subpar Soviet/Russian QC, or maintenance/logistics modeled. Every component works 100% perfectly at max performance when in reality a lot of their equipment is paper tiger performance that shows its face in field use.
Im still saying its not reasonable for a 20rpm firerate to be achievable, compared to an autoloader which can sustain a specific combat reload time for thousands of hours. I see entirely where you’re coming from though, agree to disagree I guess.
Funnily enough a lot of the armour on the leo2s are underperforming, especially with the 2a7s missing their D-tech composites and all leo 2 mantlets heavily underperforming. But it’s a lot more than just armour which is missing for them. Russia has recieved it’s modern ammo, NATO has yet to do so, probably because their anti-ERA properties which almost completely nullify Russian heavy ERA, along with their insensitive propelants which would make ammo racking them completely impossible at it would merely start a fire rather than an explosion, and the leopard 2 has yet to recieve it’s automatic fire supression system which can put out ammunition fires, which would make it so hitting ammo wouldn’t kill the tank, but merely destroy that specific round.
Don’t get me wrong, if Russian tanks are missing something they certainly should get fixed, but NATO tanks also has a lot of aspects missing which would buff them a lot of implemented.
The sad thing about the more modern vehicles we’re seeing in this game is that because half of the shit is classified its much more susceptible to armchair historians schizo ranting. I encourage most buffs everyone can get in this game if its within reason, because frankly I just want everyone to enjoy themselves. Its a silly tank sim after all.
The problem isn’t that much of the info is classified, plenty of open source information exists.
The problem is finding balance between real world performance and capability and keeping the game fun and balanced.
While it would be a lot of fun to go NATO sponsored seal clubbing against Soviet/Russian equipment, it would quickly butcher the player base if we just used real world values. Which is where the discussions of what to add, and what to value come in.
I mean I have faith in Russian equipment against NATO equipment. A common trend I’m noticing when both of these are used is that one side is usually entirely incompetent and thus gets curb stomped. Its happened before, NATO pilots smoked the F-16 in a dogfight with the ex DDR MiG-29s with the HMD and R-73.
Comparing war game performance without knowing what limitations were imposed on either side often often skews the results. Almost all war games are scenario based and often impose different limitations on one side or the other. Like limiting American fighters from using AWACS/datalink BVR guidance, or some of the survivability systems like the towed decoy.
As a currently serving 21 year of service armament qualified officer. I can authoritatively state that the performance of many of the NATO munitions is dramatically less than what we actually see. The unclassified documents on the AGM-114K give it 1200-1400mm of armor penetration, including defeating Kontakt-5. There’s no place that anything short of a T90M can take a hit from a Hellfire, or TOW-2 and survive.
Top down hit even on the UFP of any T72 or 80 is flatly a death sentence for the entire crew.
Furthermore, many of the combat multiplier systems such as optics (specifically the later generation NVG and thermal, and vehicle survivability systems) are incorrectly modeled because there wouldn’t be much of a way to BR the NATO vehicles against Russia/China.
TBF, the K Hellfire can pretty easily pen any Russian tank, even straight through the T-90M UFP, unless the missile is fired from a similar altitude and so hits close to flat on the UFP/turret. Though “survivability” for pretty much all vehicles in game is greater than real life, since crewmen in War Thunder have balls of steel and won’t abandon their tank even after watching half the crew be turned into red mist by a uranium dart. All you need is twenty seconds to change seats and you’re as good as new.
Very likely, although I’m unaware of any tests done against a T90M as until very very recently they were only vaporware and had never even been seen.
Given the documented performance of a TOW-2B against a 90M I would feel confident assuming that anything other than a flat angle UFP hit would be immediately fatal for the 90M as well. But it is atleast possible the Relikt would prevent a UFP penetration given that it’s significantly newer and designed to protect (or boost protection from) more modern threats.
Oh, maybe I didn’t make it clear (my mistake), I meant in game the Hellfire K can do that. The Tow-2B can’t though, but the whole 2B/top-down nerf is an entirely different discussion about balance and such.
In game, I can’t reliably do it (though I’m not facing the M). Maybe 50% of the time at best can I one shot a T series, even when I catch them stationary with a hellfire.
Last night my last game I put 3 missiles into a T-80 without killing him. That was when I decided to call it a night.
Brother ffs at least site the cyclograms next time,
the literally official source stating average reload time for MZ autoloaders.
literally all MZ’s should reload in 6 seconds by official sources. All but except reloading of ATGMs (on vehicles with 9M112), which is fpr no reasons taken as constant reload time for T-64B/V and T-80B/V, with T-64A relpad being plane wrong.
I feel like the game is less biased to Russian vehicles, and more just the devs are oddly afraid of NATO sources. I guess the oligarchs are violently breathing down their throats, but that’s a topic for another day. Regardless, thank you for your input and conversation in the thread!
Im eventually gonna bug report this stuff, this was just a suggestion thread to gauge feedback. If you could link them they would be nice so I could drop them into the post, the forum thread that even mentions them is all dead links.
The reloads being lowered would cause problems for everything from 9.3 upwards, but yeah I agree with the sentiment regarding the Ariete (and pretty much everything besides the 2A7s, T-90M, and T-80BVM).
The first jet happens, setting off the ERA, then the second jet happens with no (more accurately barely any) reduction in ability to penetrate the armor.
Cue the Ariete’s spaced armor, the Merkava’s existence at this point, and the Abrams being based on an export package that was explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic DU package.