Legit all the tanks the US has at top tier and not even…starting from at least 8.3 its legit nerfed to the ground trying their best to make it a bad nation when its not…you got proof,you got documents,you got videos…stories…but that doesnt matter for Gaijin,since as long its Russia,they will implement anything that russian mains says,even if those are not confirmed at all by anyone in specific
This is something that doesnt happen to NATO tanks for example…let me why homeboy
It’s not 6.0 seconds? Hmm… cyclogram data disagrees.
There’s a lot more to unpack there, but gaijin doesn’t model certain shell types and how they are loaded.
Secondly. NATO reloads have been shown to over preform. Most manual loaders manage about 5.8-6.5 secs
Most of those videos people send, the loader keeps the door open, has no body armor on etc. making them fake reloads.
Honestly, I don’t care about your whining. Other nations have better toys now, and so that no one says I’m only on one side, I hope that the gaijin give more buffs to the Z10, the AH64, and the Mi-28NM.
Didnt know tankers have level 5 body armor
Every time I read new posts on this thread I lose more hope with the community. Now people are bringing up mid tier vehicles in a discussion specifically about top tier to justify their arguments. What’s the point of tags anymore if no one cares about them.
What can Russian tanks do that M1s can’t?
What are you even on about, am i living rent free in your head that it took you a week to comeback n respond.(also bro exaggerating 1 week when it was like 3 days lmao)
Exactly
The Abrams are legit trash moduled,missing pieces of armor…
Light vehicles have nerfed to the ground reload rate or made their gun shoot pees instead of APDS rounds
And with the shooting pees statment im refering to the Bushamaster,how come the Bushmaster cant pen anything for shit from sides/behind even tho im using APDS?
If you even manage to pen something with that gun,you will most probably just scratch a module inside of the tank youre shooting at
The only Bushmaster than somewhat works its the one the EFV has,that Bushmaster when it shoots,its actually damaged vehicles surprisingly
5.8s is better than ACE tier reload in WT and 6.5s is only slightly slower than “expert” in WT, lol?
So “most manual loaders” manage between better than ace and about expert, waow.
It’s not 6.0 seconds? Hmm… cyclogram data disagrees.
Oki.
Also funny, here’s the whole cyclogram for what you posted:
It shows that it takes longer for them to load ATGMs (roughly 7.5s if they’re the next in sequance), but we don’t have that in WT, do we?
Tell me exactly how long you think an MZ loader is.
12 seconds…maybe make it 11/10
Abrams only had its chassis armor altered in the SRP V3 version. Until US players prove that others also had alterations (which they can’t because it’s restricted), then nothing will change. And besides, what fault does Gaijin have if Abrams has such an obvious weak point in the turret ring? I believe a shot there would be fatal for the crew, even if it were a shot from a humble RPG-7. As for the Bushmaster, I don’t know; he’s fine in my Vilkas.
it has been proven
multiple times
and gaijins argument about the suspension has also been proven to be false within a week of them saying it
because it only has it due to their poor modeling
it should be 200-300mm RHA equivalent volumetric armor instead of a single 50mm plate
Im pretty sure people explained and showed countless proofs that the Abrams have way better armor than its current state,if that for you aint enough…tf you want us to do?You want me to go to Donald Trump and make a vlog where he states everything by himself to make “True” for yall?
What? I’m talking about the abrams.
Also, here’s the full Cyclogram data:
NICE RANDOM DISCORD PIC. Also, nice lying bro 10/10
Where do you think I got the Cyclogram from??
They’ll just say, “No, the T80 takes a full day to reload, while our NATO tanks do it in just one second.”
Ah so ur here just to argue for the sake of it.
No, I remember when this was the main topic on the forum, there was nothing but a mention that it had been tested, so nothing is proven.
They do that for the BMPs.