Sweden is no Nato country. Thats probaly why its ok for WT. There are only 3 countries which are allowed to have armor on their upper glacis @top tier. The latest top tier additon for Nato side would be the Leopard 2PSO, but it looks like it will follow the trend of Nato = no armor vs. top tier darts.
2 Likes
“ammo”: {
“combustionTime”: 10.0,
“detonateProb”: 0.08,
“detonatePortion”: [
BTR 80 only has an 8% detonation chance. Think about that, no one else gets that luxury in a light wheeled vehicle.
Also here you go: War-Thunder-Datamine/aces.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/units/tankmodels/ussr_gaz_mm_72k.blkx at master · gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine · GitHub
You will find no ammo detonation even coded into that vehicle.
4 Likes
Russian bias doesn’t exist though!!!
It would if you placed them BR correctly. If you are going to run modern 2021 advancements on russian vehicles, then we get modern 2021+ advancements in ammunition like the M829A4. Then you down BR the other vehicles correctly to be facing off where they should with T72s etc. I mean really… the BMP-2M is a 2019+ vehicle. The first T80BVMs from 2020 - 2021 were shown to be missing components from the demonstrator vehicle.
Stop holding other nations back and expecting them to run 1990s technology vs 2020+.
4 Likes
Not only have we caught gaijin lying and cheating in the code (I stopped playing for a year because of this) but we have also shown pure russian bias directly through the game code and people will still pretend like it doesn’t exist.
4 Likes
and the leopard 2pl is a 2020 vehicle…
2 Likes
the game has never been balanced by dates, so all your ranting is meaningless
2 Likes
SUB-I-II has the same. And?
1 Like
That is a modified 2A4… Give us the 2A7+ then or the 2A8 or the EMBT.
2 Likes
T-80BVM is a modified BV from middle 80s.
3 Likes
he’s just cherrypicking, the t80s detonation prob is exctly the same as the leopard’s
so does the t80bvm or the the t72b3… so give us the armata against the 2a8 or the EMBT
Just because a nation is incapable of producing modern equipment doesn’t mean it should be artificially buffed. Boo hoo Russia makes worse equipment compared to their NATO equivalent.
3 Likes
Conviently this benefits countries like russia more than anyone… “oh we don’t balance by date, so here is a Mig 29 from 1996 with 1990s missiles, and a F14 from 1975 and F16 from 1995, and the UK… yeah they can stick with their late 60s variants vs our 1990s because we don’t balance by dates”…
Its a bit silly. The 2S38 and BMP-2M have spent over a year at way to low a BR because “we don’t balance by dates” while they run around with IRST (while others are missing theirs like Sweden, Germany, and US), gen 3 thermals vs 1970s vehicles and helicopters and 2024 upgrades.
I get it, its an excuse they use to keep other nations behind in technology, but its a dumb that one that just shows unimpeded russian bias. It literally says “we don’t balance by years so we can keep russia on top” that is what it means.
6 Likes
Leopards det:
" “ammo”: {
“combustionTime”: 10.0,
“detonateProb”: 0.15,
“detonatePortion”: ["
15%.
3 Likes
t73b3
“combustionTime”: 10.0,
“detonateProb”: 0.15,
“detonatePortion”: [
3 Likes
Ehm… No… Its actually benefits minors, like japan (ehm, ehm Type-74 is from 1975, 4 years before Leo2 entered production).
They gave it to BMP-2M quite recently.
Which can also fire on the move, while other nations with vehicles that can fire on the move are nerfed and not allowed to. If they even get their ATGMS, the poor Germans and the missing Spike missiles is a disgrace to this game.
3 Likes
279 doesnt have automatic fpe. It has small fuel tanks below the hull that can burn out safely.
the us already have planes from the 80s and 90s, with missiles form the late 80s like the aim 54c, the r27er is a couple years newer.
not just the us btw france has been using its late 80s missiles well before of the russian “90s” missiles that you claim, btw the f14b is a 90s model.
1 Like