Because Soviet ranks have the reputation of catastrophic explosions, people think that everytime you hit near the ammo carousel, it’s supposed too catastrophically explode. The reasoning for most explosions was ammo stored outside the carousel and around the tank. Coupled with the fact nobody in WarThunder brings a full ammo load, which would lower the chancces of detonation.
You’re basically saying it’s not good enough where Relikt for example, can be easily be defeated by most rounds. And in this bug report, it mainly seems to be for Kontakt-1 and BRennus ERA.
So what ERA does NATO have that degrades kinetic penetrators of MBT calibers, because last I checked, they don’t and it’s purely towawrds chemical protection, which is negligible since ATGMS are something you don’t encounter assymetrically at these tiers since it’s tank on tank combat.
Chinese and Soviet ERA benifit the most since it’s basically multi-purpose and effecctive against all threats. Nerfing their ERA just because nato doesn’t have that type is silly. Autocannon fire is subjective because you are getting hit multiple times so ERA won’t help against offenders with high rates of fire.
Well that doesn’t always happen and that is not always the case regardless.
Also let’s just not keep saying “Soviet” ERA. China also invests in similar ERA that’s found on their top-tier MBTs.
The side of the Namer can’t stop some WW2 HEAT weapons on the side, and it is shown in combat footage as capable of stopping equivalents of Kornets. The side is also mislabeled at 80mm when it should be 150mm.
I think you might be playing it wrong. The autoloader definitely is slower than western tanks, but its not much of an issue in maps where you have to snipe (which as we know, is about 90% of all gaijin maps) but in urban maps, it does just (barely) enough. Not just that, it is an AUTOLOADER, which is a fixed reload rate and cannot really be buffed.
If any reloading mechanism should be changed, it’s the one that use humans, since there is a hell lot more that they can do. There is also something I’ve heard where tank loaders would have the next shell already in their hands after the shell in the breach was fired, so the reloading rate would be like, 2 seconds (only for that round). I think the best way to implement this in the game (if gaijin is going to feel nice) is the have it work just the same way as loaders putting shells in the first stage ammo storage.
Russian tanks do plenty fine by themselves, obviously their reload speeds aren’t the best, but you guys have plenty other things that other nations don’t get.
This is true, but apparantely since most of that armor is classified, everything about it got thrown out the window, but that doesn’t mean you nerf other countries stuff because another country has a problematic situation.
At a bare minimum for example. Challenger 2 TES/OES ERA should have STANAG 5 protection. Gaijin has denied this repeatedly despite multiple primary sources.
They nerf NATO shells and fire rates because the soviets dont have equal. so…
though Ive unloaded 100 rounds from an ajax into a T-72 before and done no damage at all. But something like a BMP-2M shreds the ERA on the Challenger 2 in seconds.
He isnt saying nerf it because other countries are under performing.
He has stated that multiple bug reports and documentation proving that LA23a1 pens Kontact 5 while gaijin made an executive decision that multiple primary source documents were wrong.
If they did that, it would defeat the purpose of tanks such as the TKX having a 3-4 second reload if every other tank can do it in 2 seconds. And if such a feature was added, they would absolutely have to balance that out by doing what GHPC does and forcing a period where the ready rack has to be replenished and blowout doors (on some nato tanks) to be left open for the reloading proccess.
The firerates on NATO vehicles are subjective because they have a human loader, and since most maps are CQC brawls, that would heavily favor them versus tanks that only wield autoloaders. There’s a lot of liberties taken in many aspects of the game that benifit one or the other more.
It wouldn’t be at all, if they did that. Then they could properly model the ammo in T-series tanks like how GHPC does it. It would be even better if they acctually forced everyone to fire from gunners sights like in MTC and left the barrel aiming in arcade. That would heavily reduce the “point and click” aspect of it and greatly slow things down.
That’s actually a pretty solid point. I am conflicted because your previous arguments were annoying, but these would be solid gsmameplay changes for RB
My previous arguments were essentially trying to neutralize the whole thing about Soviet ERA overperforming, especially considering China is another nation that heavily utilizes ERA, but somehow it’s just the Soviets ERA that’s the problem.
Then wanting to introduce things such as 2 second reloads for nato tanks that would only serve to benifit fast paced gameplay when it’s not ideal at all. That more serves to be promotional than anything else.
Not surprised it got brought up in the thread, but there is a bit of nuance when it comes to protection provided within knife fighting distance, since a fair bit of calculations are done at combat distances where rounds can reach their maximum velocity.
But the thread is definetely a good read. As far as I’m concerned, the main thing I mostly get from these topics is that NATO MBTS are weak when it comes to armor while Russian tanks are not, but have way better mobility characteristics than Russian counterparts.
The whole Abrams debate I’ve seen as of late is where it’s supposedly supposed to have all those good traits, unquestioned.
Soviet MBTs have too much survivability. Both with how their ERA is coded relatively speaking and their underlying armour, whilst NATO MBTs lack a lot of their IRL survivability.
It wouldn’t really ruin the capability of the Japanese tanks. They can do that 3-4 second reload consistently, while with human loaders you’d only get that one 2 second reload (since you can only carry one of those huge rounds, obviously) before needing to do the whole reload (about 6 seconds) so it isn’t really that much of a blow to Japanese tanks. And those other mechanics that you mentioned would be a great way to balance it out, I don’t think a significant amount of people would complain for that balance (only if gaijin doesn’t take it too far)
If there aren’t any blowout panels or doors to deflect the blast, it’ll go to the internal components and crew of the tank. I would like to know your logic on that (not opposing or hating, just curious)
The armor beneath ERA on Russian and (I believe) Chinese tanks are still stupidly strong against autocannons (at least frontally, might be affective on sides since they have spall liners that are also, absurdly strong). I can’t oppose this being false data in the game since I don’t have any evidence. But with the Western tanks, well, they don’t really have any ERA at the front, only NERA, which isn’t as effective IMO. AND no spall liner (at least on the Abrams I believe)
