Age old discussion, strikeshield should intercept apfsds as welly but it doesnt.
Its not a thing in war thunder, simple as that
M1A2 and older, Strv 122s, Leopard 2A6 and older, and a few others are all confirmed as accurate as T-series tanks in-game as IRL.
2A7 is mostly accurate.
And the rest is up for debate.
We don’t know SEP 1 and 2, we have no proof showcasing inaccuracy, just conjecture from the manufacturer.
And the rest? We probably know some things wrong with proof attained whether it’s usable or not.
Cool, now to fix the other 60% of broken MBTs. 2 series of tanks being accurate doesn’t negate the 7 other tank series that are inaccurate.
2 Likes
Good joke. We ignoring the 200mm of armor it’s missing? The giant armor holes. The speed and acceleration. The weak breach.woul call that mostly accurate?
1 Like
Upper hull (glacis plate). 0° angle of attack, KE: 656mm
In-game: 566mm
Track skirt composite screens, 15° angle of attack, KE: 623mm
Ingame: 366mm
Front right turret, 30° angle of attack, KE: 758mm
Ingame: 610mm
Front left turret, 0° angle of attack, KE: 862mm
Ingame: 724mm (absolute swiss cheese that turret is)
Front right turret, 20° angle of attack, CE: 1679mm
Ingame: 1043mm
Front right turret, 0° angle of attack, KE: 817mm
Ingame: 758mm
And that’s just the values based off of a 30 year old prototype, yet it doesn’t even match that.
The 2A7’s turret is currently less consistently armoured and frequently drops below 600mm of protection, unlike a M1A2’s turret:
10 Likes
Swedish trials armor levels right? Leo 2A7V has newer armor hull should be on turret levels
Because it’s effectively a paper vehicle.
not really its actually pretty complete just that still has a lot if issues at the moment
1 Like
They aren’t going to add it for at least several years just because of classified information that no doubt someone will feel the need to leak.
Did not stopped the addition of Chally 3 TD, no? Plus J-10A for the next update
Plus the Snail will do the usual for anything remotely modern - guesswork
2 Likes
True, but you know what happens when someone gets their hands on classified info then… (a true party am I right?)
Gotta add AbramsX in the same update to “balance” potential leakage
1 Like
yea
we have stuff like the maus in game, why cant we have this
im fine with people saying we should delay adding it until more info comes out
but saying it should not be in game completely is a very bad opinion
1 Like
the maus isnt a paper vehicle it was completely build and in fact rolled in the battlefield for a bit just to get stuck and disabled and the T-14 isnt a paper vehicle either
1 Like
The Maus is a slightly different situation. While barely above a paper vehicle (only a couple were ever produced), we still have publicly-accessible blueprints and so on, allowing the developers to accurately implement it in-game. That said, even with this, it’s still such an insanely impractical ego project that Gaijin has always had problems balancing it. It is not for nothing that they only occasionally make it available for research.
In the case of the T-14, Gaijin cannot get those sorts of hard details about things like armor values. This has always been a major problem with top-tier vehicles (cf. the Challenger’s infamously inaccurate turret slew rate and the succession of practically-indistinguishable Abrams variants), and is part of why I am not a huge fan of top-tier. In addition to the cloud of question marks that always surrounds (even somewhat-) modern vehicles, you also have to keep in mind that the Armata is a propaganda vehicle. Russia has spent the last decade hyping it up as a WunderwaffeTM, and it has not seen any combat to give us an idea of what it can actually do (as opposed to what the Russian MoD claims it can do.)
2 Likes
The Challenger 2’s turret traverse rate matches available sources, do you have anything that shows otherwise?
So… is the Comanche a propaganda vehicle too?
Sometimes prototypes just don’t really go anywhere, that doesn’t automatically make them propaganda vehicles. I don’t recall seeing any claims from the manufacturers that it’s anything more than it is.
As for the media, they can claim whatever they want, just like British media can claim ‘‘The Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world’’, as an example.
4 Likes
Re: the Challenger, I remember there being a big kerfuffle several years ago about how its turret slew rate was inaccurate, but the document somebody provided to prove it turned out to be classified.
While not necessarily nowadays (after all, the project was cancelled), the Comanche would fit into the category back in the day, and probably still is (at least until it’s declassified.)
I don’t understand this leap in logic that any prototypes that ultimately weren’t adopted/developed further must automatically be propaganda pieces.
My objection isn’t to the “not adopted/developed further” part. I’m just saying that because they are still classified and there’s no combat usage to allow the developers to make educated guesses, modern prototypes like the Armata and Comanche can’t be implemented accurately.