Because they’ve been addressed already, multiple times. You just refuse to understand the answers, or can’t understand them. Pick your choice. But I’ll do it one last time to put the matter to rest.
The fact alone that the T-80BVM is currently more survivable than the T-72B3 should ring a bell in your brain about its busted damage model. The T-72B3 should be the more survivable tank with its low profile carousel autoloader yet that’s not the case. And no, this is not a freak issue. This is a consistent thing.
Again, this has a lot to do with the invisible armor around the BVM carousel that magically stop spalls. Fuel tanks that don’t spall(All of the armored NATO fuel tanks do spall because that magic 20mm steel case around the fuel tank creates enough shrapnel to kill the entire turret crew). Couple that with shells not blowing up, a bs mantlet that also creates almost no spall while stuff like the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 have an artificial modifier that creates more spall. And you’re starting to get a clearer picture of what’s wrong.
Couple that with a sprinkle of Ka-50/52 that also have godlike damage models, often tanking 3-4 stingers before they can be put down for good. Pantsir being the best AA in the game, alongside being a totally unnecessary addition at the time(still is compared to the competition). Stuff like the 2S38 that is quite simply better at 10.0 than the HSTVL t 11.3. And NATO missing a lot of weapons to counterbalance all that.(modern shells like Russia, better armament on their helicopters, more modern NATO tanks with actual hull armor, etc)
You can also add many NATO/Non russian tanks having absolutely butchered performance. Type 10 comes to mind immediately.
Except no. Only M1 has armored fuel tanks and thats a trade off for less fuel explosions. Japanese tanks often tanks with their fuel tanks, but they are explode quite often too. Its simply not true.
[
All tanks have butchered performance. It can be their reload times, elevation speed or compltete wrong modeling, like with Type 10 and Type 90. And yeah, Russian tanks have their artificical nerfs too.
T-14 would get its turret disabled by auto canon all day long.
Side shot in the front and its dead
140mm shot straight in the front and its dead
Round used and tank fired at ?
As said above, the BVM is really the main problem because of the carroussel armor that eats spall and doesn’t spall, a <10 mm plate should not stop spalling as easily.
As for the devs, some think they now better than what first hand sources claim, may I remind you the igla/mistral/stinger mess
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.
