That guys IQ needs to be tested, first human being to have an IQ below 5 (shocking)!!!
2 Likes
At least we know there’s one who’s more reliable, and he (or she or whatever)helps review things.
1 Like
The anonymization of bug report managers has allowed this kind of behaviour to flourish. There is 0 accountability.
6 Likes
not even the worst recent example
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/w0V912pNqXkS
the other mods dont even know why it was denied, one just randomly saw it, hit not a bug without any reason and the other mods dont fix it
3 Likes
The UFP -
This image demosntrates, quote “the early prototype of filler, stacked plates” that was later changed to homogenous plate in production searies.
It is this part:
The part of technical documentation for this specific part was posted with some editing with comments:
You can note that blueprint shows 3 rows of bolts it is because later Oplot variants have afromentionted section look like this:
The ERA -
Gaijin used this broshure http://uamicrotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/p04.pdf which is dedicated for the similar ERA as original Duplet but made by
A company that was established in 2018 , while ERA used for Oplot(and Thai variant) was made by "Basic Center of Critical Technologies “Mikrotek” ". Not to mention that Oplot itself was produced from 2009 to 2018.
If we to inspect the broshure we can already see the issue with the number of inner elements used -
Additionally it seems that new HKChPWSH elements use aluminum(I found explanation that it is less prone to corrosion resulting in longer shelf life) instead of copper for shaped charges. This and the size of charges indicates that it is less effective than original “ХСЧКВ34”.
In conclusion, if regarding ERA effectiveness there is room for debate and doubt, for 50mm plates between ERA there is none and it is only up to common sense and decency from Gaijin now.
7 Likes
Has anyone encountered this problem?
From the commander’s sight perspective of bm-oplot, after each use of laser rangefinding for automatic superelevation adjustment, the reticle automatically shifts significantly to the right.
I aimed for the gun breech area in the first photo, after lasing it shifted to the right side.
I’m not sure whether it is just game mechanic, but I bug reported it anyways.possible bug
Edit: The experiment was conducted on level ground.
1 Like
This also happens on all tanks, you probably havent notice it, I think that this is caused because of the parallax.
And if you had a previous range set in the difference is even larger
1 Like
Gaijin employees don’t think the BM Oplot-T is a T-84 lmfao, I remember making that bug report. My request for it to be named ‘T-84 BM Oplot-T’ when viewed from the statcard but they’re as dense as a rock apparently.
2 Likes
👌 👌
BM Oplot and T-84 “Oplot” are different vehiclles. BM Oplot is the lates modernization that we see in the game while T-84 “Oplot” is an earlier modernization that was quiet a different thing, bellow are photos in afromentioned order:
Ukrains official name is also just BM Oplot for the latest tank.
The BM Oplot-T is still apart of the T-84 family, it’s a T-84. Just how the BVM is apart of the T-80 family and is a T-80. All of these can be true at the same time, and I’m aware that the T-84 Oplot and T-84 BM Oplot are different variants.
Gaijin doesn’t go by official designation all the time, the Pakistani T-80UD/DU1 we’ve got in-game isn’t called T-80UD/DU1 in Pakistani service, it’s just called T-80UD. When viewing information from the statcard, it’s meant to provide additional information, the BM Oplot-T when viewed from the statcard should be called the T-84 BM Oplot-T 478DU9-T (or T-84 BM Oplot 478DU9-T).
4 Likes
No, its not T-84.
Not much can be done with unzoomed, pixely and untranslated sources, if you’re going to say otherwise at least do the bare minimum.
Ukrainian brochures themselves refer the BM Oplot (non-export variant) as just the BM Oplot, does it not make it a T-84 all of a sudden? If we’re going to follow a strict naming scheme, the T-80UD/DU1 should be renamed to T-80UD in-game, Gaijin themselves went down the T-80UD/DU1 route knowing that’s not the in-service designation, strict designations isn’t a in-game restriction.
BM Oplot and T-84 BM Oplot are used interchangeably in Ukrainian service
Btw the infamous Thai Manual/textbook also calls it “T-84 Oplot” in the title
I guess the name could be written as T-84BM Oplot-T or something. But in general I don’t really have any strong opinions on what the name should be.
1 Like
Hmm I have been getting hit by these bouncing APFSDS darts quite a lot recently. Do you guys have had the same experience ?
This document refers to earlier modification not the later one.
2 Likes
If the leak list is real, a buff on reload can really mitigate the armor thingy.
How 0.5 better reload will mitigate vurnurable hull? Thats not how “mitigation” works. 6 second reload is only third best and thats not counting the total amount of tanks possesing 5 second reload.