They dont lap load in Abrams
1 Like
Not surprising given the varied and contradictory information given on youtbe . We all stand corrected at some point.
Much easier but has protocol in British MBTs has led to deaths and injuries over the years.
In actual fact if video evidence is studied then many modern MBTs come out about the same, so I am not even necessarily arguing the point.
I think NATO supporters fail to understand that facing Russian tanks in close proximity is not an idea situation for any NATO tanker or least it didnt use to be . We favoured the open ground where armour and range was in our favour.
WT is close up and personal especially given how small the maps are.
The game does not match reality because NATO has never faced the USSR under the same conditions the game creates yet armchair experts would have you believe they did. Even those who served who post on here have never experienced close combat with later Russian tanks with supposed Russian crews.
Because the others keep getting neglected, it’s cause and effect and not the other way around as Gaijin wants to spin it.
if you keep ignoring a nation, then players will stop playing, and not that players don’t play it so Gaijin ignores it.
Italy’s top tier MBTs are from almost 5 years ago, and then add the worst version of the AMV so they can add another AMV in the future with the actual armor package and features so you can research a 5th bad MBT, that yes, is inherently bad but also made worse but it’s poor implementation, and then it gets placed at top tier because surely they’re equal to a Leopard 2A7 and whatnot somehow.
Then place the OTO also at top tier so your shitty overtiered lineup can have an equally shitty overtiered SPAA to go with it.
But then it’s the Abrams that suffers and needs the reload buff, not Italy that lost it’s only redeeming factor years ago.
4 Likes
What you mentioned is what I was about t say aswell. In WT maps that are more close range, towns etc Russian tanks seem to do a lot better then on like open maps where all you see is Leopards and or Abrams turret. Combined with the poorer reload and reverse of the Russian tanks they tend to most often than not lose that fight. Russian tanks being smaller and more cramped where everything is much closer together doesnt help the situation either and ends up with one penetrating shot doing much more damage than on the other two.
Talking about reality and WT I personally consider also wrong since all these tanks are mostly wrong in their armor and penetration capabilities so its all a game of guessing imo. Also EVERY tank has some tricks up its sleeve that rarely anyone knows about which help them in this or that way in a combat situation. Also lets say for example the Russian T-80 series which I mentioned earlier having sub 5 seconds reload. That is the case in the “Sequence” mode which rotates the carousel automatically while the gun is loaded and prepares the next round to be brought up into the gun. This goes out the window in WT since we are 99% of the time using APFSDS shells anyway so sequence or not it should technically always have a sub 5 sec reload. Plus after they fire (not sure if NATO tanks aswell) the gun goes into a neutral position for it to load the gun and then drops down to where you are aiming which also doesnt happen in WT. So all this IRL this tank does this and that is pointless imo.
1 Like
Its basically the same thing they did with RU SPAA. Made older ones deliberately worse so that they can implement the ridiculous Pantsir which NONE needed. Imo I wouldve done it so that lets say you have a Strela and after you research all the modules you have some more modern variants of the rockets to research but they are like 50-100k RP to open. After you open them the vehicle automatically gets uptiered when you put those missiles in which you cant change in the game itself but only in the hangar.
SA-8 and SA-9 wouldve been also much better and better suitable choices for the WT world to implement than the Pantsir
They can of course but you aren’t getting 5s reloads I imagine.
Selectively choosing when to apply realistic stats is not realism or realistic.
I think if we went back to the cold war days of the 80s, which is the era for many so called "Modern " vehicles in WT and had the NATO 80s tanks vs 80s Russia under the same circumstances as the game then we would have some serious losses for NATO.
As some have stated, bad practice causes deaths for the UK, open hatches, Lap loading, untidy workspace, you might be surprised.
People see the NATO seal clubs of the last 30 years and think that is War Thunder, it is by no means anything like WT. Look at how many Mekavas are ablaze on the internet now they are actually fighting a real enemy. The dream died when the war actually came. So many paper heroes about that never saw action like WT does it.
Lets see modern day US tanks go into Ukraine without their weeklong aerial bombardment of enemy ground forces. Go head-to-head in a straight shooter in built up areas and kiss goodbye to that “Never lost a crew member” tag
Just proved we are on previous comment
Like we have said there is nothing realistic about how WT plays out. There would be a player base uproar of it played how real active service was. It certainly would not be a balanced fair game.
Unless you have a source, pretty sure that’s wrong.
Italy was bad enough without being made worse, the Russian SPAA situation was hilariously stupid to pretend their SPAA was so bad they needed to implement the Pantsir that far outclasses other SPAA.
But now other nations can’t get other AA systems for some reason that are on par with the Pantsir…
1 Like
Seems like The big nations are picking over detail with top players scoring high with USSR and USA whereas some countries cant even put a decent line up together to compete.
thank you I will check out the webpage
Agree with every single word here…Nothing to add really, just that its a shame theres very few people who think like this nowadays being overwhelmingly biased in one or the other direction due to some certain conflicts going on.
1 Like
Under the section autoloaders T64 & T80 is that sub 5 sec reload thingy. In general its a good informative website about the T-XX series tanks though its quite old so some of the newer systems arent there
What would even be the equivalent of Pantsir for the NATO?
I honestly wouldnt be surprised that after the Pantsir we get like an S-300 battery to research or something…
Btw sorry for 3 replies in a row, I dont know how to reply to multiple people at once lol
They simply need to implement multi-vehicle setups.
Since the SPAA line is only SHORAD vehicles and not HIMAD/THAAD vehicles I think it would be something like the Stryker SHORAD, AN/TWQ-1 Avenger, BvS 10s with IRIS-T SLS missiles or something like the Skyranger 30/35s or even the Rapier FSB system on some tracked APC. Russia has a much higher amount of long range SHORADs and the US doesn’t because the Patriot paired with the CRAM is enough for the USs expectations.
1 Like
I’m not too familiar with the capabilities of NATO AA and if there is something that is in between what we have now before ending up with a Patriot or something.
Which is why the addition of the Pantsir was so stupid as they really forced it in there.
1 Like
Thats exacty the issue. What do you add after the Pantsir? I mean its not like they can add anything after the T90M aswell anyway but at least every nation more or less has something in the ball park unlike Pantsir.
Stryker SHORAD, or whatever else is kinda quite needed by the US. Or lower the amount of points needed for a pure AA aircraft to do the same job
NATO mostly has AA systems that require multiple vehicles and whatnot, but I don’t believe the Pantsir operates solely by itself either so that seems like a weird line in the sand.