You are not listening!
This isn’t about me!
It’s about the thousands of tanks [GAIJIN] nerfed, and the countless other MBTs [GAIJIN] destroyed.
Why is [GAIJIN] above historical accuracy? Why does [GAIJIN] never fix their inaccuracies?
Where is [GAIJIN] when people are trying to fix their tanks with bug reports!?
What do I want…? I wa… I want corrections! I want fixes! I. WANT. [GAIJIN].
The USMC did not use Blazer, it is a domestic ERA (M1/M2). Super Blazer was produced after Desert Storm anyways, so it couldn’t have been equipped on USMC M60s. And yes, it should have M833 timeline wise, but that is the point I am making. Balance takes priority over introduction date, which is why we don’t have 120C-5 vs R-77 or M60A1 RISE P vs T-80U.
WHERE IS SEKRET DOCUMENT, WHERE IS IT?
SEKRET DOCUMENT ILL obtain YOU
YOU CLASSIFIED PAPERS ILL obtain YOU
its crazy how people dont notice that the “M1A2 SEPv2” in game has export armor from the 90’s with values from the Swedish tank trials, which I remember seeing statements that the export armor was worse than the DU armor it replaced.
so what gaijin claims is a SEPv2 is actually an export m1a2 from the 90s with TUSK v2
tbh they should just buff the abrams hull regardless
make it like +50mm ke for HC and A1, 60-80mm for A2(from M1-A2 has the same hull layout except different composite and stuff and ofc except AIM)
80-120mm for AIM and 90-140mm for SEP and SEP V2
make it resist 3bm46 at a distance atleast
and change hydraulic location as well as turret ring buff to 200-250mm range(which it should be close), ufp thickness buff(38.1mm+25.4mm plate)and roof armor thickness buff maybe
and the new turret basket
all of that seems reasonable, would definitely want to see source on the UFP change though
Can you get me these docs?
here is an old forum post on this Fwd: Dec/11/2019 M1A2 Abrams Turret Armor - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
I do not belive m1a2 has had any armor improvements since and in game SEPv2 armor is identical
thats the problem
the number i provide are spectaculative number to propose for buff
the irl hull armor would likely be more due to technologies improvement
but they are all classified so cant really say much
Because some data being classified aside, Gaijin just likes artificially gimping NATO so the IvanBoos can have their fun and not constantly whine on the forums about how outclassed their hardware is.
Cute flag. Doesn’t prove me wrong, btw.
Maybe because stuff come to the game based on it’s efficiency, not release date.
Still having to tell this to people in 2025 is upsetting.
Why am I seeing F4U-4s in my bf109 kürfürst?! They were used during korean war (as CAS platforms because jets on carriers was a bad idea but that’s just details. It was also deployed in the final months of WW2 proper. But details.). Uptier the F4U-4 and make it fight mig-15s!
If you see in forum carefully you will know it
excuse like that i heard it many times before and look what happen now
look at KH-38 for example ruins the game complete because they need newer weapons than other
Russian need newer weapons because they suffer other don’t need newer weapons because it too OP
hah sure.
AIM-120B is already a competitor to R-77-1 in game, so asking for C-5 just because of it’s release date doesn’t make sense.
and does KH-38 (2012) against 1990+ SPAA system that don’t even have TWS make sense to you?
because it what happening in the game right now
or because its Russia so justifies to you?
Again, date of introduction means nothing.
If something is not enough, we definitely need something better added to the game, but adding something to the game just because “year of introduction” is foolish.
And that what happen right now 2012 AGM vs 1990+ SPAA system look how the game doing right now
We all want new AAs, you aren’t the only one.
R-77-1 is decades younger than AIM-120B but they are still counterparts being fairly balanced. I don’t see an issue there.
