Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

Hello everyone. We’ve noticed that many of you had questions regarding spall liners on tanks and armor in general. To avoid any misunderstandings, we’d like to briefly answer some of these elements below.

The effectiveness of the M1 Abrams

We’ll soon be releasing a dev blog on the hull armor for the M1 Abrams series of tanks, where we’ll explain why we believe that hull armor was not reinforced on production vehicles. However, we’re not satisfied with the current effectiveness of all M1 variants with a 120 mm gun, so we’re looking at other ways to improve them.

The first consideration is the addition of a new M829A3 shell which we’ve also seen requests and suggestions for. We’ve discussed this option, but the addition of this shell in comparison with the M829A2 will not enhance the Abrams capability against top-tier vehicles that are equipped with modern armor and built-in ERA systems. We’re still considering the possibility of adding the M829A3 shell, but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents. This rate of fire is possible considering the size and weight of most shells for 105 mm guns are comparable to shells for a 120 mm gun. This is due to the fact that the 120 mm cartridge case is partially combustible, while the 105 mm case is metal. For example, a 105 mm shell with an M900 projectile has a length of 1003 mm and a weight of 18.5 kg, and a 120 mm M829A2 has a length of 982 mm and a weight of 20.3 kg.

The Leopard 2A7V’s armor


We always try to bring the characteristics of vehicles presented in the game as close as possible to the documented characteristics of real vehicles. In the case of the protection of the Leopard 2A7V, we rely on information about the Leopard 2 armor package presented at the Swedish tender. We have no reliable evidence that armor enhancements compared to the prototype submitted to the Swedish tender were ever carried out, nor the level to which the armor could have been enhanced if this had been done, so at this time we don’t believe that it’s possible to further enhance the protection of this tank.

As for the difference in protection between the Swedish versions of the Leopard 2 and the German Leopard 2A7V (the Swedish versions have more, which may seem illogical). This is due to the fact that the Swedish versions of these tanks received their own, completely new, reinforced armor package of their own production, both in the hull and and on the turret (which is also confirmed by protection data obtained in tests for the tender).

At the same time, we’d like to note that the current level of protection of the Leopard 2A7V currently is that the majority of the frontal area is protected against any 120-125 mm APFSDS presented in the game. Regarding the slightly lower turret protection than the Leopard 2A6, small differences in durability within ~2~5% do not affect this tank’s protection, and are due to the difference in vehicle geometry. In the near future, we will update the DM for Leopard 2 tanks, therefore correcting any minor discrepancies.

We’d also like to separately note that some players believe that the protection of the Leopard 2A7V presented in the game is based on the “B” package. However, according to the data we have, this is not the case. As you can see from the armor resistance diagrams from the Swedish tender, the mounted package D-2 in combination with package B provides protection of only 45% of the frontal projection from APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm, but in the game a different combination of armor protection packages is presented, providing protection of more than 65% of the frontal projection from threats of this type.

Protection of Leopard 2I (improved), based on B package with an add-on kit of D-2: more than 55% vulnerable to APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm.

Armor map in the game: less than 35% of the projection is vulnerable to APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm.

Spall liners for the Ariete, Merkava and Leclerc

We’re currently studying and adding spall liners for Ariete tanks. These tanks will receive spall liners in a future update.

As for the Merkava series of tanks, we have information that these tanks do not have spall liners. We’ve studied information from open sources and apart from armored steel, we did not find any other protection on the sides of the Merkava’s fighting compartment.

At the moment we don’t have reliable data from open sources about the precedence of spall liners on the Leclerc series of tanks.

Battle Rating 12.7 for Aviation

We’re closely monitoring the data and believe that at the moment, there’s no need for an increase to the current Battle Rating threshold for aviation from 12.3 to 12.7. This is because the current efficiency of all new aircraft except the JAS39s is at the level of previously introduced Battle Rating 12.3 aircraft. As for the Gripens, their flight model has been revised, and we’ll monitor their effectiveness after these changes.

Tornado IDS WTD61

We decided not to expand the range of weapons of the Tornado IDS WTD61, since we’re not sure that this aircraft could carry a targeting pod and guided bombs. However, we’re closely monitoring this aircraft’s performance and are ready to make other changes if necessary.

Topics for upcoming Development blogs

We’re working on your reports on the Challenger 2 series of tanks, and many of these issues have already been fixed. We’ll publish answers to some questions regarding these tanks in the near future. In addition to this, a development blog about the changes to the parameters of Stinger and Mistral MANPADS missiles is planned for release in the very near future, so keep an eye out on the news for that.


Love the transparancy


If M829A3 comes, do you also consider DM73, SHARD and L28 ?

However, I think 12.7 for aviation is necessary, many 11.3+ are suffering from the massive difference in flight performance, Radar and Armament.


What about the effectiveness of the challenger 2’s armour mantlet and other issues. All we have got so far is “we have fixed some of them”? This is not a good response.


It’s in the text:

We’re working on your reports on the Challenger 2 series of tanks, and many of these issues have already been fixed. We’ll publish answers to some questions regarding these tanks in the near future.


Which issues have been fixed and or looked into?


“ Regarding the slightly lower turret protection than the Leopard 2A6, small differences in durability within ~2~5% do not affect this tank’s protection, and are due to the difference in vehicle geometry.”So whats the differences between A6 and A7V’s turret geometry?


So… I guess the Turret weighs as much as the Hull on the Abrams now.



Man, many bug report with credible source that says leopard 2a7v hull armor protection is the same as its turret is not believeable huh? Then maybe show us your data, all of your data that 2a7v has worse armor than strv122


So getting the fastest manual loader AND the possibility of a new shell is anti-american bias? Damn I would love some anti-italian bias if this is what it looks like!


Are you Freaking kidding us??? The study is way older then the 2A7V and not even an reliable source for the armor of the 2A7V anymore


well ok atleast we know Gaijin isnt incompetent now they just disregard any sources they dont like


Will be an interesting read considering that even the M1E1 seemingly had a steel slab added to the front hull to simulate extra weight.


It’s a consolation prize for Gaijin pretending that 70% of the Frontal profile of the tank hasn’t been updated since 1980…


Would rather just have the actual armor the tank has.


Still insisting that the Abrams doesn’t have spall liner?

Lol. Lmao even.


Let me start by saying that these types of posts are really great, i love them. More of these please since they give a frame of reference and a statement to quote from should the need arise.

I do however want to se comments on specific sources given to devs that they consider not worthy. Many people in the community have banded together to go on a deep dive for sources and have put hundreds of hours of effort into finding good sources on the need to improve the armor for specific tanks. it would be really good to know why these sources are not considered reliable enough or not specific enough so that we in the future know not to use those sources again.

at what angle?
I just checked and i am VERY interested in how you got that heatmap:

This upgrade is the same one that the L2A6 later got (excluding the front tip).
These tanks are based on the L2A4 and Sweden chose to go for armor upgrade while Germany went for a more powerful gun and thus made the L2A5, later they added the same package as the Swedes in the L2A6 (again; excluding the front tip). so the fact that the L2A7V is supposedly more protected than the L2A6 it does not make any sense that the Strv 122B in game is more protected than the L2A7V in game.
I personally have not been very active in this particular debacle and have limited knowledge and sources but as a Swedish player playing the Swedish tree and a huge military nerd; this makes no sense to me.

And again, knowing what sources was rejected for what reason would be extremally helpful to everyone putting in such a vast effort of looking for legal sources.


where is leclerc buff?


Where do they say this? I only see them referencing the hull armor upgrade people have been asking for a long time


100% yes