notice how your the only one being rude here grow up
also its not issue aiming for the drivers port some shots will literally just non pen if u hit to close to the hatch. also russias “only advantage” when they have the best top tier cas about to probably be the best top tier spaa and the good mobility on the bvm and the gun handling is nice aswell. and no all those vehicles are not better that russian tanks (the ariete challenger 2 the leclerc and merkava is arguable). and to not hit the relikt u have to either hit below it which isnt exactly fun or above it which also isnt exactly fun cause it will probably not 1 shot and not to mention soemtimes the autoloader just doesnt ignite the ammunition. and like i think everyone said the weakspots are a lot SMALLER on russian tanks as there not as big as nato tanks and the drivers port is still an easy shot on nato tanks anyway
How so?
Its much easier to hit than nato roofs and you can do that while enemy cant even see you with their gun. Killed many self confident fools who thought they can deflect sabots with their roofs. While looking down on them and while they pop up from hill.
1 Like
smaller lfp smaller drivers port compared to SOME top tier tanks (challenger for example) smaller breech area and trolly side armour sometimes
rude? how’s asking u to get better rude?
if u aim close to the hatch, then yes it’s an aiming issue.
- we’re talking about tanks, not planes/CAS.
- the new SPAA already got it’s nerfs and it isn’t what it looks like it’s going to be, especially if we keep in mind it’s main AAM doesn’t have proxy fuze, which means u need a direct hit if u want a kill. all it looks like it will be able of is destroying CAS weaponry midair thx to the insane amount of anti-drone missiles.
- yeah sure, BVM has good mobility and gun handling, just like any other toptier NATO MBT. u didn’t prove anything with this point.
this is ragebait, right?
so 2A7V is worse than BVM? seriously? u must be truly ragebaiting atp.
maybe cuz ammunition is a separate thing from autoloader? why do u think u can damage french autoloaders without exploding the ammo? cuz they’re separated!!!.
russian tanks are smaller than NATO ones, that’s a russian doctrine, if u still struggle to hit the weakspots of an inferior tank, u should try to get better by watching tutorials or asking friends.
Abrams looking at this argument:
Good specification. But while t series can have smaller weakspots compared to chinesium or challenger hulls (they compensate that with good turret armor and sabot eating aps in case of c2bn) or arietes, they lose to 2a7s and strv122s.
without armor.
Abrams’ LFP has composite, russian tanks have NOTHING.
easiest shot ever, literally no armor too and it’s like shooting to the UFP without ERA and like 30% less armor.
how’s a 125mm breech smaller than a 120mm breech, lol?
didn’t happen to me but in that case it should simply get fixed.
read what i say next time maybe i didnt mention the 2a7 i mentioned the challenger ariete leclerc and merkava idk where u heard 2a7v there but whatever. also french autoloader is differenct to the russian/chinese carousel autoloaders the ammo is literally INSIDE the autoloader there not seperated unless you hit like the top which is possible i guess but not my point. also i can mostly aim well enough to hit the drivers port roof and lfp but the breech is a weakspot where it seems no matter where i hit it i get a non pen but that must be a me issue. and the abrams wont be looking at the argument because someone wouldve gone through the drivers port to the turret ring and take out the basket so it cant turn to look at it anymore
breech area not the breech itself
I would say the same to you though. Getting actually good at the game before dropping lines like these.
Didn’t say the breach mate, turret face it can go through.
No it’s literally because the Merriam Webster dictionary focuses on more colloquial usage rather than correct grammatical usage.
Aka descriptive rathar than prescriptive.
While it is pretty good for American usage, alternatives like the Oxford English Dictionary are often considered more appropriate for scholarly or historical research.
No I do not at all.
In your native tongue it may mean otherwise, however in English Perception and sight are two distinct functions, the sight, aka seeing, is what you can literally see, the physicality of it. The perception is the interpretation of said physical sight / reception.
You also used the word perception in the context as I’ve described above then rather than go and change it or can it have decided to carry on this farce.
The biological definition in English is tied to sight the action of “perception” is the brain interpretation OF the light/ images that the eyes are receiving.
Yes as the same in Spanish mate, but English is not Spanish nor your native tongue, it is it’s own distinct language.
Yes and the context in which you used that word explicitly means that your perception able to have been changed , or not, by the use of Russian vehicles, hence the question you posed.
The question you also posed is written in a way that the previous remarks related to the size of weakspots is irrelevant as your question unless rhetorical, shows that your perception (understanding / understood information relevant to the weakspot size) is capable of changing.
NOT THAT THE ACTUAL WEAK SPOTS THEMSELVES CHANGE
Need I reiterate that more¿
Most of who are passing?
1- this is not obnoxious, I’ll use your language wrong and see how you react to it.
2- This “tirade” is nothing of the sort, it’s a simple explination of language to show how you’ve misused a word, I am not angry at you at all.
As well as this, what I’ve presented to you is not that long at all as a series of pieces of broken up information.
again, your denial of how my language that I am extremely well versed in teaching works is why this has went on as long as this.
I am a “profesor en titular” and earned my position through hard work and a lot of research into my own language.
If you’d like I can give you the “most annoying English lesson you’ve ever had”.
Tank baskets in my experience especially Abrams have actually helped me survive more situations than not. Rather than penetrating straight through and killing the crew in one shot it usually allows for me to take the hit, reverse and escape, or reposition enough to fire at them with borked turret.
The leopards are slightly less forgiving than that at least the 2a5 and A6 have been, the 2A4 usually is alright.
Happens mate, use of language is important when trying to convay the correct information relevant to the point at hand.
What does this even mean?
I’ve misused nothing at all lol.
Whole ass turret ring exists for most russian MBTs bar maybe the T90M I think, but evne that has it last I chekced.
oh yeah l26 can go through the turret face of the 80b sorry i didnt see that but i was more speaking of top tier
1 Like
ok i will hear what u said:
u didn’t mention Leopard 2A7V, so yes, looks like u believe BVM is better than 2A7V, since the only arguable tanks are Ariete, Challenger 2, Leclerc and Merkava, which means that are the only ones that are maybe better than russian tanks.
bro they’re the same, both have the ammo inside the goddamn autoloader, that’s why they’re autoloaded.
the only difference is that french autoloaders (NATO ammo racks in general) have blowout panels (which russian tanks don’t).
trunnions, people is still complaining about it being too OP.
it should get modelled correctly and get physics/fix/logic (it should nulify the capacity of the russian tank to aim vertically, just like it should deal some damage to the breech too).
now u’re mentioning turret ring, that’s not driver’s port.
Abram’s UFP is unpenetrable, no matter what.
turret ring is an universal weakspot for all NATO tanks. LFP is an universal weakspot for all NATO AND RUSSIAN tanks.
u can ufp an abrams if you are like maybe elevated 2 feet above it also my mistake i meant the bvm is better than the challenger ariete and arguably merkava and leclerc. the 2a7v the sep and sepv2 the type 10 and tkx (arguably) the strv 122s are all better than the t80 and t90 yeah my mistake in wording
Oh well then its good that this is a gaming forum and not a bachelors thesis. If your entire point is based on someone using the right vs the wrong dictionary in a discussion on a gaming forum then take your win lmao
and u can UFP the T-90M if u’re 56º over it (nulifying it’s 56º angled UFP), so i don’t understand ur point.
anything can be killed in perfect and specific conditions.
now that does a bit more of sense.
Bravo!
i mean lets be honest being 56 degrees (idk how to get the small circle) is very unlikely being very slightly elevated above an abrams is quite likely its literally have any angle above it and go right through the ufp as theres no armour there is a shot trap and ricochet
Uh thats kinda an important distinction when talking about whether autoloader hits should kill the crew tho
or just shoot through the turret ring and ignore the fact that u need to be in a specific condition to pen that
1 Like
or that but i can sometimes pen the abrams ufp on flat ground aswell oddly enough