in my language I would call them junction points between the plates, I don’t know how to explain it differently, however yes I understand what you mean
1 Like
the r27er isnt really comparable with the aim120, as it is a sarh missile, and russia does have an equivalent to the aim120b the r77 or the r27EA
btw the r27r is entered in service in 1983 alongside the mig 29 and the su27, in 1988 started the deliveries of the r27r1 which is the export variant, aka the one that the germans used, and he ER entered in service in 1990.
Its actual counter is the aim9p/r, the p block2 is like a 86 or 87 missile, i know that the r program was cancelled but it would actually give a proper counter to the r27et
thats problem with the volumetric, which happens in all tanks
This is only correct for the base models. The R27 from 1983 has a 20 degree ish seeker head. The 40 degree seeker head was an upgrade from later on. The 70degree seeker head we can see in game is a mid 1990s upgrade.
Does an older missile exist. Yes. Are they using that in game. No. Otherwise you wouldn’t have the launch angles you have in game.
The actual counter to the models they are giving russia in game is the AIM-120B and Aim-9P. the R27ER has enough of an INS that you don’t need to worry about it exploding after you lose lock (like you unrealistically see with the Sparrows). The US Sparrows shouldn’t blow up like they do in game just for losing lock, as they can still detect reflectivity off the target even if you don’t hard lock it. This is why DTT and other multi target systems are missing.
The F14 can track 24+ targets at once, and fire independently on up to 6 targets at a time. You don’t hard lock 6 targets to do this. It shows how the modeling in game is wrong. The F16s in game should have DTT which would allow you to fire two sparrows on two different targets at once. As long as you get any kind of readable reflectivity they should maintain lock. Even at extremely low levels of reflectivity (notching is not as effective IRL as it is in game). This is why the Migs have anywhere from a 10 losses to 1 kill ratio to 3 losses to 1 kill ratio (the Mig 29). F15 is 107 kills to 0 losses. The F 16 has 75 kills and 5 losses. The F14 has 135 kills to 4 losses.
The reality is, the missiles for the US side are modeled wrong and shouldn’t lose target lock as easily as they do. They should also not require hard lock.
That doesn’t even get into the missing LOAL systems. The AIM-9L and Li could both be fire without lock and as long as it acquired something before its fuel ran out would self lock and seek it.
One of these days gaijin is going to run out ways to hold NATO nations back. It would not shock me if they end of lifed the game instead of doing the right thing and allowing us to get our top of the line stuff. I don’t have enough faith in the morality of the company to ever expect to see this.
4 Likes
The AIM-9X uses the AIM-9R’s seeker. For an R-27ER counter you would probably be looking at something like the AIM-97 (Air launched RIM-66 w/ IR terminal homing), though the airframe would let it down
Which could be fixed by simplifying the DM and replacing detailing with a Flat plate on the back end so that doesn’t happen because there would no longer be any gaps or overlap.
Hitting the extreme edge of the Flyer plate IRL would probably make it far less effective as the imparted energy would cause the plate(s) to rotate into the penetrator.
No they won’t, take a look at how Overpressure is modeled with HEAT DM’s being hard capped to 20mm of penetration, so a Maverick with a similar explosive mass to Mk.81 250lb bomb (5 meter kill radius) can’t reliably OSK T-xx due to them having 30~45mm of turret roof armor.
or that plates thinner than 6mm RHAe simply don’t cause spalling, NERA array values, etc.
It will always be the edge cases where mechanics overlap characteristics where things are taken advantage of.
2 Likes
I actually have an armor plate here that has been hit like this. The plate itself was not cut all the way through due to tip missing the armor plate but the ogive making contact deforming the round. Basically it stopped the round.
This is disgustingly true. It is why I won’t spend money anymore. I used to, I wish I could, but they don’t deserve it.
3 Likes
Swedish leopard are this but worse, but I don’t see many complain about that
Huh?
Have you ever considered that maybe its because Swedish Strv122’s doesnt have powerful line-up compare to Russia?
Seems like you didnt.
Yes it does, russia has only 1 top ranking tank. Sweden has 2.5 if not 3. How is this any different that germany, which legit gets worse vehicles despite you know…
3 Likes
Stop lying, i already dealed with Razer and i dont have time for same bs once again.
Swedish top tier tanks are both Strv122 series while Russia has T80BVM and T72B3.
İf you’re gonna say 72B3 is not top tier worthy im gonna suggest you can cry at the corner.
5 Likes
T-72B3 is worse than the BVM overall and both are inferior to the Leopard 2A5/6, especially the Strv122
3 Likes
Both are inferior to Leopard2A5-6?
LMAO.
Both T-Series does have unpenetrable hull armor with very good unpenetrable turret thanks to Era while those Leopards does have Lol-pen hull armor.
Only 122 gives russian tanks to proper challenge.
Stop living in fantasy world.
8 Likes
What fantasy world? Only people who can’t aim for shit complain about ru tanks. Leopards offer better overall gameplay advantages. Leopards benefit a lot from the lack of spall making them a void sometimes (BVM does too but not as much since the crew is near). I’ve played both so I know.
Only people who should complain here are the abrams users and the other meme tanks at top tier which are completly bad (realistic or not)
1 Like
Here you go. From the Game Code:
T-80
“ammo”: {
“armorClass”: “tank_structural_steel”,
“hp”: 300.0,
“armorThickness”: 2.0,
“armorThrough”: 10.0,
“fireProtectionHp”: 20.0,
“createSecondaryShatters”: false,
And the T-72
“turret_composite_armor”: {
“composite_armor_turret_03_dm”: {
“armorClass”: “CHA_tank_modern”,
“hidableInXrayViewer”: true,
“armorThickness”: 0.01,
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.0,
“cumulativeArmorQuality”: 0.0,
“createSecondaryShatters”: false
"composite_armor_turret_02_dm": {
"armorClass": "CHA_tank_modern",
"hidableInXrayViewer": true,
"armorThickness": 0.01,
"genericArmorQuality": 0.0,
"cumulativeArmorQuality": 0.0,
"createSecondaryShatters": false
This tells you spalling is turned off.
Here is Germany 2A6:
“gun_mask_05_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 650.0,
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.6,
“cumulativeArmorQuality”: 0.8,
“createSecondaryShatters”: true
},
“gun_mask_03_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 400.0,
“genericArmorQuality”: 0.2,
“createSecondaryShatters”: true
},
Spalling is turned on.
How about Sweden?
"gun_mask_05_dm": {
"armorThickness": 650.0,
"genericArmorQuality": 0.6,
"cumulativeArmorQuality": 0.8,
"createSecondaryShatters": true
},
"gun_mask_03_dm": {
"armorThickness": 400.0,
"genericArmorQuality": 0.2,
"createSecondaryShatters": true
},
it is a copy paste for Sweden.
I would also like to note a couple things in the code. For instance the T-72 is labeled as a 2017 model
ussr_t_72b3_2017
So they are getting the latest and greatest it has to offer.
Also to be fair code wise, here is the gun mask for russia:
“gun_mask_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 50.0,
“variableThickness”: true
},
“gun_mask_01_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 30.0
},
“gun_mask_02_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 30.0
},
“gun_mask_04_dm”: {
“armorThickness”: 20.0
You will notice its layered armor with no spalling.
7 Likes
Another bs here we go.
Leopards and any other Nato tanks does have spalling unlike russian tanks which should be opposite considering Nato tanks are the one who does have spall liners.
Most of the Maps are designed to be CQC and flat which benefits Russian tanks most.
İf your misareble false claims finished i suggest touch some grass and stop bein victimizing Russian tanks.
3 Likes
İ think you pinned wrong person.
I went ahead and shared how spalling is turned off for russia, its in the code… You can’t argue directly from the code.
2 Likes
Nope, I pinned you correctly. This data from the code backs up your statement with facts.
Oh i see what you mean.
İ thought you were replying other guy in order to proof that his claim was wrong, well you kinda did actually.