Yeah because that would need actual proof that you guys never have
4 Likes
1 Like
Great counterargument buddy, the other kids in 4th grade will celebrate you for that one tomorrow at school
1 Like
This…^^
We have Russian Bias and Russia needs buff topics…sometimes on the same day…
I play all nations and i saw Jumbo, KT, Zis5 “bias” over time…and many others…some tanks (from several nations) are simply stronger on some period of time…eventually an update or BR change alters that…
I see no particular nation bias…never did…and the best way to check it is playing the nation we think is biased…
(I recall thinking Jumbos were completely OP…until i started using them…they were still “strong” tanks for some time, but playing them showed me how to die in them :) )
5 Likes
Add Pantsir its actual range and capabilities? The cycle you want to start never ends…US might have better aircrafts but RU by far has better AA systems and giving each of them their respective realistic capabilities means theres not gonna be a lot of helis flying around and thus we come back to here and cry about RU being OP and AGM 114L not being able to even get withing 5 mile radius of the battefield
Just speaking on this specifically, the F/A-XX isn’t being cancelled, just delayed. Because they’re prioritising the F-47 (made by Boeing); they’re worried they’re going to overwhelm the industrial base as I understand it, because the two remaining bids are from Boeing (F-47) and Northrop Grumman (who’ve just been awarded $4.5 billion to accelerate production of the B-21)
The program has just been awarded $897M for the 2026 Fiscal year, to accelerate the IOC of whichever bid wins
We should hear more news around April
Yeah FCAS however seems like it’s fked. Oh well, more GCAP’s to sell :-)
Well, every single time I have hit their autoloader and shell went through, I checked replays if it actually hit the ammo. Guess what? Shell in most cases is stopped by autoloader mechanism, or the dart goes through actual shells in the rack without causing explosion. Meanwhile several times I forgot to reduce ammo in my leopard’s 2, every single shot that touched in hull ammo caused it to explode. Despite NATO standard uses special propellant that is harder to detonate.
Umm every single shot to the breech is -2 crew, breech destroyed and often turret basket as well. Then 40s+ repair follows with practically maximum crew. Driver port is like movie theater screen, impossible to miss instant kill even with full crew.T80/90 takes side shot, autoloader and gunner OR commander dead, ok 12-15s quick repair, still able to turn turret and shoot the loaded shell.
Those tanks have literally 0 armor, shoot them anywhere frontally and have kill secured. Don’t need to aim for the breech, driver port, lfp or whatever else.
Russian mbt’s are hardly losing 2 crew members in single shot, tank performance doesn’t suffer almost at all. They still reload in same time.
Yeah, autoloader doesn’t lock the turret turning unlike any nato tanks for some reason. Also you can still have shot loaded, turn and fire back and chill during your 12 second repair. Leopard with 2 crew will take as long to reload.
Please, can you provide a link to a replay if you encounter this often? I personally haven’t seen any cases since 2.35.0.26.
Curious how that only seems to happen to other players, and not when I test it.
So I took the time to record several days worth of matches, then combed through the recordings and compiled each and every shot I had taken against a Russian MBT.
The results were as follows:
Spoiler
Not a single instance of ammunition being struck without it detonating. Not a single instance of the autoloader preventing ammunition detonation either.
As far as I’m aware, not a single one of the current in-game ammunition types had this feature.
Later derivatives did, but that’s not relevant to War Thunder.
It is not.
If we’re switching to full on hyperbole, I could just as easily call the T-80BVM’s turret weakspot the size of a football field.
The turret pops off.
Don’t move the goalpost.
Your point was that autoloader modules soak up APFSDS rounds, now you’re moving the goalpost to the NATO vehicles which utilize autoloaders having lesser armour profiles.
That wasn’t the point you made.
You’re right, usually all three.
3 Likes
There you go, first game into t80 driver port. Shell went through frontal layer of ammo in the rack, then through the second layer. Just yellowed. Funny enough all the ammo he had was there.
You can keep your opinion for yourself, it’s waste of time discussing that anyway.
6 Likes
Source?
They aren’t wrong but atp expecting gaijin to be historical with Russian (and basically anyone’s) loadouts is just wishful at best unfortunately…
L27a1 does i believe, but maybe not i could be wrong
Even if they lose 2 its game over lol
The APFSDS round clearly goes over top of the ammunition.
You unironically presented me with a perfect example of what I described earlier:
5 Likes
Metal autoloader shouldn’t be eating spall like its made of thick enough stuff to stop artillery fragments but also not generating spall like it’s too thin to generate spall from a moderately degraded KEP flying through it.
You can’t have both. One or the other but never both.
Turret baskets generate spall last I checked. Autoloaders and the associated metal firewalls/carousel covers do not.
2 Likes
You are blind, aren’t you? Can’t see all the red dots scattered over all of the ammo? From the bottom to the top. LOL.
It doesn’t exist, tho?
Unless you mean AS A MOCK UP, then I guess.
it exists, i even showed a picture of one of them in a museum from a reliable website.
Kh-38 is real, MT is technically a mockup, and sadly that’s enough for Gaijin.
Spall =/= APFSDS rod.
2 Likes
but not enough to buff nato vehicles even with plenty of documents supporting it
3 Likes