Raven434th

wrong post sorry

E1 please

Fine then lets get started shall we? (we can talk about yer paranoid delusions later) Lets talk about your net code and flying tanks and lying AAR's,maybe we can best having to take 7 pages of common sense to convince you to change things?(probably not) but lets try.You wanna make cryptic posts like that then expect to get it right back.

We won

This undermines everything we've been discussing in the other threads because they are based on the AAR reports....

This second set of screenshots that you posted would WOULD NOT HAVE PROMPTED ME TO QUESTION THE DAMAGE MODEL. BUT I DO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF YOUR AAR'S (esim,not you assassin)

I'm going by the screenshot...it looks like it hit him squarely in the forehead (after hitting the scope thingy)...if the screenshot is lying so be it. What got hit here??

agreed...but when we see a turret pop in sb its purpose is to emulate a ammo storage hit which is a known flaw of the T-72 chassis...and other T tanks I believe.

I never said an armata turret would pop...I said it for the reason the T-72 pops when getting hit in the ammo storage.

well turrets pop are in sb because turrets pop off in real life due to ammo cook off...thats why you put it there

Ok doubly so for the A4

But the A4 round is specifically designed to defeat ERA...that's the whole point of it.

I really don't think the Russians anticipated the Americians comming up with a solution to counter the Armata so soon. IMO this allows Abrams to use the same tactics as they would against T-80\90, meaning they can engage it frontally if they choose to...at the same ranges. But that's my speculation...not fact.

If a sabot did get into that area,I would expect the ammo to cook off like a t-72

One guy tells us there's nothing wrong(volcano),one guy says the aar's are wrong and are inaccurate due to net code(roguesnake),and another guy (ssnake) say they're looking into the damage model issue to improve it and will give us the new A4 round to compensate. WTF?