A man can dream though
2 Likes
The usual gaijin nonsense
5 Likes
Gaijin have made themselves into a joke at this point. “Here take a 70$ premium and as a highlight we’ll talk about how badly we modelled it in-game!!!”
All sources say WAR protects vs KE but since they have it modelled with 11mm worth of KE protection they have to make shit up in the devblog for their botched modelling to make sense.
5 Likes
isnt that classified as false advertising? it provides no extra protection for the turret cheeks at all.
Regardless if its AI writte, intern written or dev written the advert tells me I will have increased resistance on the turret cheeks from ATGMs and HEAT based shells.
Also IRL did this thing even fire DM53? im sure @SPANISH_AVENGER had a good point with the ammunitions for it ,how CL3143 should be its historical shell.
Why has gaijin all of a sudden taken this attitude of going miles off of historical accuracy so they can just ram things at random BRs.
last tank they did this with was the Shir 2, rather than model L15A5 as a better APDS they just gave it “L23” which isnt real, for the sake of arguing, it was prototype then it still was trialed at least 2 years after shir 2 was discontinued. So shir 2 really should not get L23.
Why is gaijin just giving tanks what they feel like and believe it should get rather than what they actually should get.
Like the IS6 randomely getting B471D to put its BR up to 7.7
7 Likes
just start eating that 5.5 tons of spaghetti guys
the day we finish is the day that gaijin give Ariete the correct armour
2 Likes
It’s a shame.
The Arietes, limited to their historical CL3143 shell, with their turret armor corrected (3BM42-proof without WAR, 3BM60-proof with WAR) and a lower BR, such as 11.0 (if MBT-2000 and Al-Khalid can be there, so could Ariete) or at least 11.3, could actually be quite good and relevant tanks.
Instead, they are the worse in the entire game. Because they were thrown into a BR they have no business at for an unhistorical shell that doesn’t even change much and with armor that is somehow less effective than rubber-fabric, including modules that weight 6 tons yet add 10mm KE only despite being 250+mm LOS thick.
10 Likes
I agree with everything bar this.
while they have access to DM53, a 5 second reload and their current mobility they are better than the CR2s.
Both are absolutely woeful though, I have absolutely no idea why gaijin insists on giving them DM53 just to force them to a higher BR that they shouldnt even be at.
Like genuinely I believe my ZTZ 99 II and III are better than the arietes at 12.0 bar in the firepower department and reverse gear.
This is absolutely ridiculous man as well, like how does additional armour designed to stop chemical and some kinetic rounds amount to less than rubber… ( I think the wood on the tigers provides more kinitec protection.)
Though I may be wrong with that one
what makes it even more disappointing is the Arietes are actually unique tanks that a nation is still using and are quite ineteresting as well!
(im a massive fan of the OF40 MK 3!)
4 Likes
Indeed, Italians is the only country that has no Squadron Vehicle at all on all of its tech trees and I do not understand why.
4 Likes
If gaijin fixes the error on this mbt armor, I will be happy to buy it.
5 Likes
putting them all at 11.3 would stop us having to uptier the poor otomatic up 0.7 in br too lmao… not that the otomatic should even be 11.3…
5 Likes
gaijin dont like tank that can resist russian round
every tank should be able to be pen by 3bm60
4 Likes
Hello! Any news or it is on standby mode again? Italian TT playerbase is not that loud as some, but we deserve the comment from devs at least, like if they regect suggestion, at least maybe they will say why “WAR” kit is modelled in the way they think.
1 Like
Hello
Based on the current information, the report is not sufficient for the moment to provide any changes to the protection of the vehicle. The report will remain open whilst the developers investigate further to see if new information can be found.
Could it please be taken into consideration that the nature and purpose itself of the in-game WAR kit is wrong?
As stated in the devblog:
Let’s take a closer look at the WAR armor add-on kit mentioned above. This kit provides additional protection on the turret’s cheeks, helping to resist hits from guided missiles and HEAT based shells.
Spoiler
We have two secondary sources, which state the opposite:
The WAR kit is not made for CE protection, but for KE protection.
7 Likes
I will assume the report is, as you say, insufficient to fix all the armor layout of the tank. But can we please address the elephant in the room
Spoiler
And before you say how premium devblogs are just written by the store team or whatever. That statement in the blog is a DIRECT DESCRIPTION of what is currently modelled in the game and straight up CONTRADICTS every publicly available source that the WAR kit is meant to protect against APFSDS. And if you want these sources, I will happily provide them.
The answer we keep getting is that we need to give you protection values.
Why are we pretending like guesstimates are not used when modelling modern in-service vehicles?
You have the weight of the armor, you have the dimensions (SO YOU KNOW THE DENSITY) and you have the intended role of the armor, we even have the date of introduction if you need a timeframe for the armor technology.
Yet you keep refusing to fix it and even worse never explain what the current modelling is even based on, which if we take the description provided in your OWN Devblog is pure FANTASY!!!
If you are so adamant about your position, why not release a blog explaining the current modeling like you do for other hot topics in the community?
Instead, we have your team ignoring all the feedback, creating a fantasy narrative about HEAT protection and arrogantly selling it to us for 70$ instead of taking 1 look at the worst top tier tank in the game.
6 Likes
A report can be made from in game model if there is a clear view of something being incorrect in the WAR kits protection.
The dev blog itself however is not a source and not something a report can be made from. Everything within a blog is subject to change.
This is such a nothing burger of a answer. We all know how these reports go
3 Likes
I can only provide assistance towards the proper means on how reports can be made and the issue raised correctly.
If no reports are made, sadly there is little we can do to help there.
A report was made and not accepted
But hey nice deflection, throw it to “make a report” when you know the report won’t pass.
And I’ve already preemptively addressed what you will say about it just being a dev blog info. The blog is simply describing what is in modeled in the game. And what is modeled in the game has sources proving that it is wrong. But I know all that will be done is editing the blog instead of addressing the issue.
2 Likes