The t-series tanks currently have an armor ring around the rack of the autoloader whereas the nato tanks armor rings are becoming their horizontal drive, plus t series lose no reload speed when they lose a crew member so i think its fair.
This is not a thing, at all.
There is nothing special about “Russian” ERA.
There’s something special about flier-plate ERA that deflects the round to simulate reducing pen [54 - 200mm doubled-up ERA depending on angle].
However, that deflection is purely to simulate the reduction of pen that the ERA is supposed to do.
For a NATO tank to suffer a reduced reload, it must have suffered 2 crew losses.
If a T-series tank suffers 2 crew losses, it sends you back to the Respawn screen.
It’s due to the autoloader actuator being only able to rotate clockwise, if the round you’d like to switch to is on the other side of the carousel, even if it’s right infront of the shell you want, it has to do a full loop to select and queue that round.
not exactly fully relating to what you’d said but another thing that’d be nice to have ingame is switching rounds while there’s one in the breech
In their DM files (not visible in game through normal means) the autoloader has a structural steel ring around it that blocks spalling and generates no spalling. This is also in addition to the 15mm structural steel for the ammo “casettes” that further blocks fragmentation.
These two armor additions are questionably realistic, especially considering a degraded penetrator with reduced velocity and increased cross sectional size would be more capable of generating spall on weaker armor plates. The “cassette” armor is objectively overperforming as well. Real life examples are barely 4mm structural steel and that has been proven to be incapable of blocking fragmentation.
Additionally, the turret floor separating the autoloader from the crew blocks fragmentation and further degrades penetrators but does not generate fragmentation when it is substantial enough to do so IRL.
Exactly that is what I mean, it will not defeat K-5 plus frontal plate of 80U, the British report only makes superficial claims about the L27A1 shells about penetrating 700mm of armor, I am sure they can only do this to older tanks and older steal (lower grade).
Primary docs (aka British report) are as good as a letter written up by a clerc with no explanation no pictures provided only written up words that are 1 page in length. Plenty of simulations online and credible A1 tests prove otherwise, so gajiin should not allow 80u frontal plate to be penned by some 660mm semi decent round for its time period.
The catch 22 is that it is only a 1 time thing, second or third round hitting the same area will pen the frontal plate.
No that is not what I am saying, I am refering to the penetration of L27A1 it has overstated values, not the vehicles themselves, what gajiin should do is replace all of their ground maps and create dynamic maps with many areas of multipathing that can not be shot from one end to another or chanelling and funeling players within a certain line which everyone is looking at. If this is done then it will be way more up to the players and manuever warfare which determines the outcome of the match. Penetration values wont matter as much in that case.
Hold on I am a ground based player stinger missiles ground to air (Surface to air) weapons you are jumping from penetration values of a specific round to bannans and oranges (Aka stinger missiles). Soviet tanks are by no means overperforming their win rates and kd ratio reflects that, Only the T80s are playable to an extent no other tank is overperforming infact all other tanks are inderperforming and the BVM is an extreemly easy tank to kill its kd ratio is what 1.2 to 1,27 that is not at all an overperforming vehicle.
If stinger missiles can pull 20gs and they have proven to do so in irl then it should be changed in game.