I’ve now known them by heart, it’s always the same people over and over again, bunch of clowns really.
5 Likes
You really shouldn’t talk about yourself like that. Have more respect for yourself.
4 Likes
I don’t know why you people are still arguing with these american mains, everyone knows that trying to have a logical argument with them is like trying to play chess against a pigeon.
In spite of all technical documentation, primary sources and crew testimonies stating the opposite these people will never stop crying until the developers do what they think is real in their delusional mind.
It’s been proven over and over again that these people can’t argue in good faith so i really don’t get why you all still bother.
9 Likes
The Devs do whatever they wan’t and implement whatever they choose to, even if the community give factual sources, it will be acknowledged but expect for it to get a fix during 2 years.
6 Likes
You went out of your way to prove his entire post right. Impressive.
3 Likes
The annoying thing is that there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed:
- The M1A2 SEP and onwards should have increased turret side protection against shaped charge threats.
- The turret ring being converted to volumetric is very much welcome.
- The TUSK and ARAT being changed to researchable modifications like they are on the M1128 and T-72B3 should’ve been a thing from the start.
- M1A2 SEP v3 should’ve probably been introduced alongside the Leopard 2 A7V.
It’s a shame that the attention isn’t on these topics for which there is solid evidence and/or reasoning, but instead there’s wild, unfocussed and unsourced claims about the M1 being oh-so-poorly modelled across the board.
‘‘Trust me bro, I know a guy that knows a guy that works at GDLS that says the M1 in War Thunder is a joke…’’
10 Likes
How? i just mentioned how the devs do whatever they wan’t, didn’t mention anything related to the post.
You’re arguing in bad faith just like he said.
The devs do work with factual sources. EVERY single time there’s a “new source” US mains bandwagon on, it’s either a bootleg tank wiki, a propaganda video, or simply misinterpretation of the documents. For example, the famous WT content creator Spookston is a huge US tech fanboy but even him disagrees with the whole DU in the hull and spall liner for the Abrams. All because he can actually read and is not acting in bad faith like some of you.
Don’t blame the devs for YOUR dishonesty.
6 Likes
You’re clearly mistaken. Spookston is obviously a US hater just like all of the rest of us.
5 Likes
8 Likes
Dont you know the abrams NEEDS its fantasy DU hull armour it NEEDS a literal AI gunner to play the game for you
Genuinely having to argue with the average US main on here is like trying to teach a chimpanzee english they should just shut up and post sources for the actual issues and not fantasy bullshit or stuff that wont come to the game ever
4 Likes
Factual sources *when convenient lol
5 Likes
Their calculations on the stinger missile are so flawed it’s insane
2 Likes
You’re so tone deaf that you pretty much volunteered to provide an example of bad faith argument.
Do remind me, we’re talking about time of implementation of fixes? We’re talking about the stinger? Was this source rejected or labeled as non-factual? Does the Abrams uses the Stinger as ammo and no one told me that?
In case you don’t know, the answer to all of that is “no”.
3 Likes
And see this is what happens instead of focusing on one thing at a time you go off on about something else entirely, this is why the abrams wont get “fixed” because gaijin sees you as just annoying and whining about everything and they dont need to pander to you so go spam bug reports about the abrams actual issues not bullshit DU hulls and once the abrams is fixed then go spam about stingers
2 Likes
I love how “The US is missing blank” threads always end up a crying contest with minor nations mains trying to invalidate the often valid complaints of US players.
Its not as if the US getting its vehicles corrected means your favorite nation cannot also get the fixes it needs, yet that is so often the attitude. Never save a drowning man, never argue with a minor nation main.
5 Likes
Wdym? No one is anti American everyone loves Americans.
This never happens its quite literally the other way around a few days ago the chinese spall liner thread was filled with US mains crying about the abrams not getting its fantasy spall liner
4 Likes
Effectively yes, it was straight up ignored did you even read the MANPADS devblog? They had to make significant oversimplifications, and assumptions (on the level of; both a a banana and a lemon must taste similar because they are both yellow, thus the Igla and Stinger must work the same way)
There are two fundamental flaws with what they present that they rely upon these assumptions that allow out of plane response forces can be modeled directly as;
Surface Response Force * Cos(Angle out of plane) = Net Force
which as established by ADA111769
Viewing collectively the results obtained, it is concluded that the
effect of directing steering control out of the angle-of-attack platte can be
approximated, for the conditions tested, by directing the control-force increments and control-moment increments obtained when 0 = 0’ to the new steering
direction, then resolving these increments back to the non-rolling axes system
used herein. The accuracy of this procedure (exact at zero angle of attack)
deteriorates somewhat as angle of attack increases.
Does not hold, for Rolling Airrame missiles (The Study uses the RIM-116 as the investigated case)
The second is that it assumes the Stinger uses a Single control channel
With a single-channel relay control of a rolling airframe missile
Which can be obviously seen from the following Block diagram to be False (at least for those derivatives that use the POST seeker, I’d have to actually dig further to see if sources for the Redeye or FIM-92A can be turned up.)
4 Likes
Still, no one asked. Also, in case you didn’t notice, no one is doubting that, you’re forcing a non-argument here because of your lack of insight.
It seems you’re approaching the whole situation in a very childish and egotistical manner, being unable to observe the big scene.
Gaijin is a private civilian company, it takes a BIG RISK by having military information in it’s game as it could face severe repercutions for it. If you REALLY want them to implement stuff correctly, you have to understand that it is only natural that they will take time and caution before implementing something that could be critical information.
The first source you posted has these words and you expect them to act immediately?
It is their right to be cautious. It’s not a whiny gamer that will tell them otherwise.
Related to this topic (not the Stinger) available information makes it clear that the Abrams models currently in-game, do not have the DU hull and spall liners people are demanding. It’s simple and this is the correct course of action by Gaijin.
I’m expecting you to argument in good faith after knowing that. Don’t let me down.
3 Likes