That’s simply not true. Please do more effort. All Leopard 2 have armored fuel tanks. Challengers(all versions) have armored fuel tanks(albeit armored exterior fuel tank but the interior plates still create insane spalling). All Ariete have armored fuel tanks. And even the Leclercs have 2 large armored fuel tanks. And I’m probably missing more.
The T-80BVM is fine. It doesn’t have problems making it weaker as far as I know. It’s in fact overperforming rather than underperforming in armor and thermal.(It has gen3 instead of gen2)
All helis broken. And yeah, i got Ka-50 one shotted by my Type 93 in one battle and 2 shots in another. And same happened with Apache and even with even smaller stuff, like Bo
The Ka-50/52 flying without tail is the biggest offender of them all. I always have to shoot 2-3 ADATS missiles at the people first spawning them with rockets and going for spawn. 1 ADATS rocket is a sure way for the zombie, tailless, Ka-50/52 to kill me with rockets after I had the kill in the logs.
Yes, I know the heli can do that in real life but NOWHERE with the kind of manoeuver you see in War Thunder. In WT, they retain enough surface control as to rotate and precisely aim their gun/rockets. Just no. Especially after getting hit by a missile that has TWENTY time the explosive mass as a stinger.
This is what happens to a Mi-24 hit by a slightly larger stinger.(Piorun)
Again external.
Okay, i should had specify, that im about internal ones.
And all internal fuel tanks arent armored. Leclercs have their fuel tanks internally and without armor in front and in bottom of tank.
Both type 10 and type 90 have their fuel tanks internally and without armor.
So yeah, its a trade off for less fuel explosions.
Its not.
I read it. And its sourceless pile of text (same as some otrher posts made by him, like “rebuilding japanese tree” or it was calling something like that, where he made absolutely sourceless calculations about penetration, based on nothing).
Find me one source that confirms the T-80BVM should have 3rd generation thermal. The T-80BVM FCS is the Sosna-U, which itself is based on the 2nd Generation Catherine FC. It was advertised as a ‘3rd generation’ thermal by the company making it but the quality itself went slightly down from the Catherine during the local production. This is not surprising considering Russia has always been extremely backward when producing thermal scopes.
There is also the PNM-T that is slowly replacing the Sosna but there is no concrete information pointing to the PNM-T being a high definition thermal worthy of being called 3rd Generation.
It’s sourced in the first post, and then more are posted in the thread itself. But it’s an easy way out for you to simply dismiss it as such. Good job.
I think i know what guy you talk about. In the span of ~30 comments, he just made like 4 different pen calculation, one of them ended up with more angle pen at 60 degs on the Chi-To than the 122mm BR-471B xd.
What he wrote on the JP TT is irrelevant and serves no other purpose than to discredit the work he’s done.
Now for the funny part, his work is based on older work by Gaijin’s very own Senior Technical Moderator, Conraire - he had reported the issue of overperforming Soviet/Russian armours as far back as 2019. If you look at Conraire’s findings, they both conclude exactly the same thing; the way Gaijin modelled eastern armours is wrong.
And the bettet part? Book written by Leopard 2’s Project Manager states that a tank firing DM33 APFSDS could duel all Soviet MBTs of the time at long ranges (i.e have no problems defeating them, so clearly there is protection issue) until they got K-5 ERA.
From my interactions with him on discord, yes, he still does. However he doesn’t contribute to the new forum for whatever reason (never asked him about that tbh).
And… its literally how they works irl. They have coaxial rotors for a reason.
Idk… But Mi-24 and Ka-52 are kinda… Different helis by all measurements.
And thats because all helis are broken. I got my UH-1B flying straight and normaly aiming without its tail (yeah, engine died after 10 secs, but stiil), why i surely should have been able to do it.
Idk where you even found that.
Its not. One picture of tank and one screen from unsourced document is not “source”.
Considering some of the people interacting in this topic alone, he’s honestly quite right to not bother.(whatever his reason may be) The man had a degree in engineering if I remember right but I’m sure someone like Hirosava would dismiss his opinion the same way he just dismissed the other topic itself built on Conraire’s data, as you said.
In real life you don’t aim for weakpoints, you aim center mass because of deviations at long ranges. In the game we have pretty much nothing comparable to that due to mouse aim.
Them stating DM33 could defeat those tanks while not aiming at weakpoints like we do should be a clear indication that it could defeat the armour itself.
And? You can defeat Soviet mbts without era with DM33 by aimin in literally center of mass (actually their CoM is their weakspot, but okay). Whats your point?
Sure, show me DM33 penetrating T-72Bs glacis without aiming for the weakpoints. Round developed to defeat this MBT btw, which according to the Project Manager of the Leopard 2 did so without problems, yada yada yada.
I’ll wait.
Btw, Hirosava already completely changed the goalpost away from the calculations that Conraire and Sombralix performed @CyrusJackson :DD
