Ukrainian modificationsof vehicles are often of similar scale, so why is that copy paste but Firefly isn’t?
8 Likes
You mean ukrainians putting soviet turrets on slightly altered soviet hulls? Yeah buddy, totally not copy paste. And that firefly remark. Compare the hull to other shermans, it’s completely different and is only 1 tank in an entire tech tree. Not the whole tech tree, next!
1 Like
Soviet turrets like the locally developed KASKET or 120mm carrying turrets?
Regardless of whether the components existed beforehand, if they are put together in a configuration that hasn’t been seen before then it’s unique. This is per definition the truth.
Do Ukrainian engines, armaments, armours, transmissions and whole damn turrets mean nothing to you?
That just smells like selective bias.
And whether or not the Firefly is the only modification of a foreign vehicle in the tree (which it isn’t), what does it matter? It’s performance has been objectively and significantly altered, just like it is the case for Ukrainian vehicles.
Like it or not, Ukrainian tanks are unique because of these facts and because of the amount of these unique vehicles that can be added to Ukraine it would make for a (relatively) plausible tree.
And honestly, you don’t need to be a supporter of the tree to recognize it’s uniqueness either, but you do neither of these things.
Way to slander the engineers behind their products…
10 Likes
The ukrainian tech tree is not unique in anyway
With MiG-29 and Su-27 modernizations, they’re 1-off, sure, but it’s much like the numbers of the T-84. They add a lot to the aircraft, and they’re just as numerous as aircraft like the Su-25T/TM or the Russian MiG-29SMT.
1 Like
That’s quite literally just a BMD.
Does that mean the VCC-80/30 is a copy/paste of the VCC-80/25? What about the Freccia / VBC?
9 Likes
An empty statement.
You will need to elaborate on that if you want to be considered valid.
Next :) ?
9 Likes
Ok so that’s 28(?). Now I need a count of all unique units
The fact that the textolite layer was replaced with an ERA layer does not mean that it has become less strong.
2 Likes
T-80UD with Drozd APS is literally BM Oplot 2000(Obj 478DU9) , just exported to U.S.
1 Like
I’ll shut up
So now we are backtracking on previous statements?
Things are looking bleak for your argument…
Anyhow, namecalling is also quite revealing.
I am by no means a “ukraineboo”, I am simply calling out what is clearly wrong.
Yes, I do think Ukraine should be an independent tree, but I have also stated that I don’t think it is the best option to be the next independent tree. In fact, in regards to potential trees that I look positively towards this would be on the lower end.
5 Likes
This, right here. It’s more or less my opinion.
I do think the Ukraine tree is good however due to it being a partial tree I don’t want to see it soon.
Not until we see the 5-10 Rank 1 possible trees still and the better partial tree options.
2 Likes
“усовершенствованной конфигурации танка - Т-84У”
https://web.archive.org/web/20151211095308/http://morozovkmdb.com/rus/body/history4-19.php
1 Like
This one looks more like DU7 from Malaysian MBT tender, where PT-91M Pendekar was chosen
Well congrats on wasting your time on compiling the list from outdated TT image. Now do this over again with updated tech tree (still WIP), which you would’ve noticed if you actively participated in the thread discussion.
But the fact that you labeled “T-64BV” as simple clone of “T-64” or denying the tree from having Gepard 1A2 (which saw actual combat and fulfilled its purpose only in AFU) tells me that no arguments will change your mind and I really shouldn’t waste time on another passing tree hater either.
8 Likes
There’s the thing called “gameplay assumption” in War Thunder - many things simply emulated from known data and added to the game. Form of BM44U1 is known and probably also some specs, so it can be added if there will be a good reason for it.
When we discussed “Kombat” anti-tank missile performance here in the thread, someone pointed out in the manner of “we already have Kobra in the game, it’s basically the same”. So nothing stops devs doing the same with BM44U1.
The other thing to point out: 3BM60 “exists” only in really small numbers. No one actually seen them used in combat or captured them in significant numbers (aside from one known photo of trophy). Yet in the game anyone can load full rack with it and shoot away infinitely. And I seriously doubt that devs dismantled “Svinets” or fully simulated its real life performance.
1 Like
Sure, they can do it, but in my opinion that will be just another can of worms and another case of discussion of how effecient it would be IRL based on assumptions, just another things for people to argue about.
One is HEAT and other is Kinetic, HEAT value is simply set by devs, but the APDSFS has to have most of its values preset just to determine it’s effectiveness.
I am fine with implementing it, but, again thats just a can of worms.
Point still stands as the point was made without the ERA in general, as if it was set off by previous shots.
Meaning, T-84 will have slightly less effectiveness versus KE than T-80BV/U but at the same time will be much prone to HEAT.
Though, I am mistaken about HSTV-L point, I admire that.
1 Like
You’re confusing me
T-84 will have the same 3 layers of steel even without an ERA
3 Likes