dont forget the TOW 2-A not getting more pen with the Tandem Charge
1 Like
They have always been among the 2 most dominant nations for air. The F-4C, F-4E, F-14A, and F-16C all had their time dominating, just like their russian counterparts.
I’ll give you the heli point here though.
Just like the other vehicles with TOW-2B were impacted and not just the US.
Both are fine at their BR. The LAV is a goofy light tank with stingers and ths M1 is one of the best 10.3 MBTs, but your stats show a clear enough picture as to why you might be struggling with it.
Probably because they are really good vehicles in the hands of players without skill issue. Gaijin just took way to long to finally move the panthers to 6.0.
If there is a source that state the scope, than it’s just incompetence from Gaijin.
Just like what was the case for Russia, Britain, Japan and France? Rhat they only started addressing recently?
We will get more SPAA for the US within a couple of updates likely. Gaijin has quite a clear pattern regarding this.
I do wonder if they are going to keep the IPM1 at 11.0 though, I don’t think M900 justifies it being at that br anymore after the reload change.
Just like what was the case for Russia, Britain, Japan and France? Rhat they only started addressing recently?
I agree with everything else, but on this I disagree, the US has gotten royally screwed here. Russia likewise needed SPAA and did get them, and really good ones at that.
However all US SPAA up to the M163 bar the M42 were added when the US ground tech tree was added 9 years ago… The M42 was added a few months after the US was added and still almost a year before the UK ground tech tree was added.
Meanwhile:
UK:
Ystervark - October 2021
Bosvark - October 2022
Skink - September 2022
Russia:
BTR-ZD - June 2022
M53/59 - March 2023
BTR-152D - October 2023
France (needed):
AMX-10P - October 2023
ACMAT - December 2023
USA (Ground TT added December 2014):
M42 - February 2015
Even Italy got a new SPAA recently with the Leopard 40/70.
So maybe you are right, Gaijin’s clear plan was to wait for the US ground TT’s 10th anniversary or something…
Japan also really needs a new low - mid tier SPAA of course.
Do spallliners disapear after getting hit in warthunder?
Yes, most of the time after a single hit, but the best i had was 3 penetration without spall liner dissapeaing
1 Like
I highly hope that gajin reworks how to handle armor values slightly after @SPANISH_AVENGER suggestion. In this day and age it just isnt sustainable anymore to demand exact armor values since those will all be classified and puts gajin in danger of other leakers of classified documents because they might be unsatisfied with the vehicle performance in the game.
Additionaly with how fast technology is progressing a 30 year old study on armor performance just has no credibility anymore for newer vehicles that are based on new performance and technological progress.
The Leopard 2A7V has nothing to do anymore with the swedish trial anymore because it is not based on the TVM tank anymore, it is a further upgrade on the armor packages of the Leopard 2E and HEL series.
And its armor values should be handled after their multiple secondary sources stating the frontal hull is brought up to the lvl of the arrowhead turret.
It is OK if gajin out of balance reasons doesnt want to give the 2A7V a frontal armor of 1200mm, but in this case they should openly state so and just give it the same armor lvl of the swedish Strv122 series
10 Likes
I think they will leave it at 11.0. Mainly because it will be too overpowered according to the statistics, also gameplay wise likely.
You quite litterally pointed out the pattern here. They identify a gap in their opinion and then overbombard it with new SPAA. After that they move on to another gap.
The US 9.0-11.7 SPAA gap that used to exist is also a prime example of this.
1 Like
" Kantas also alleged that a KMW representative, Dimitris Papachristos, paid him 0.5% of the value of the PzH-2000 deal (approximately EUR 820,000), while a third representative, Thomas Liakounakos, left EUR 600,000 on his couch to smooth over his concerns about the Leopard 2 program. Kantas claimed he originally believed the tank program was unnecessary, but Defence Minister Yiannos Papantoniou felt obliged to continue the program because the army demanded parity in re-capitalization spending with the other services."
None of the other parts relate to Leopard 2 acquisition.
It remains unknown whether KMW was responsible for any bribery associated with the Leopard 2 contracts, as originally suspected by the Greek investigators, or whether it was Rheinmetall alone which greased the deal.
Not like it would have mattered, it was either leo 2 or no new MBT.
It already makes several mistakes, it’s not “LeClerc”, leo 2 also did already directly compete with M1A2 and Leclerc in the UK…
I wonder where the Leclerc name misunderstanding comes from…
Any luck getting that source claiming the Swedish FMS Package was comparable to the DU Package?
Yes it was the best export armour GDLS had at the time i.e. it was meant to be better armour then the original FMS armour package, however it was not equivalent to the US’s DU armour as GDLS did not have a DU armour equivalent until after the Swedish trials, i.e. what was used in Greece and Turkey was comparable to the US’s M1A2 DU armour and it was called the Improved FMS armour package:
No, if you look at the protection the US gave for it’s M1A2 to Sweden (with DU), it is very, very close to the protection levels the Swedes got in their non-DU package.
Can you link it?
That’s irrelevant, it quite clearly shows that DU’s main benefits are not in terms of mass efficiency, but rather volume efficiency.
And as I said, there are a lot of errors in that article:
There was never a “Swedish” armour package, it was all developed by IBD but simply made in Sweden for test firing by Akers (which later became IBD subsidiary).
This is just an excuse as to why M1 didn’t get chosen, Americans were quite surprised when they saw the test results and even made a last ditch effort to sway the Swedes by offering M1s with 105s…
The 62.5t was the weight as offered to the Swedes, a non-DU package equivalent to the DU one did exist and was offered as Lindström states.
The M1A1 AIM doesn’t weigh 62.5t because it lacks a CITV and the new commander’s cupola, this along with a few other things can easily make up for the 500kg difference:
https://www.army.gov.au/equipment/vehicles-and-surveillance/m1-abrams-tank
FMS non-DU (also known as “advanced non-DU”) → M1A1 level
Improved FMS non-DU → M1A1HA/HC level
The Australians received a non-DU armour comparable (again, indicated by the weight…)
There is no indication it is equivalent to HAP-3, nor is there even any indication of what changed with HAP-3…
It is possible that HAP-3 is simply the new term for the HAP-2 package including the Improved Turret Side Armor (ITSA), there was never any explanation given.
again, where’s the source on this one?
Because if you go off of the previous quote about DU being more volume efficient, than that means in order to achieve a similar level of protection you’d actually need to make the tank dimensionally longer at the very least to achieve similar levels.
Lindström says this, according to him they tested the “best armour” available in each country in firing trials in said country (backed up by the fact that the slides contain US and German documents) and they did their own testing in Sweden against armour arrays made locally with information from the supplier, both the original armour and the one improved with the IBD/AK developed add-ons.
The slide with the various protection levels and arcs is from US documents and can also be found in some US documents (obviously with the actual values censored).
Only the slides containing the simulations are the ones that were made by the Swedes (actually using CONDAT, a Franco-German protection software).
It’s clearly visible that the turret mockup lacks the add-on in these images and that these tests are done in Sweden, but similar tests were done in the US (as stated several times…).
I’m trying to access the USAHEC files again, but that site is quite fickle, it may take some time.
The files don’t load atm.
Highly recommended to go and take a look at it though, there’s a lot of cool stuff that can be found, when it is up.
For example:
XM1E1 armour improvement proposals.
They decided to only improve the turret armour as hull improvement supposedly had negligible effect.
Really, if you want armour improvements, you should be looking at the frontal arc for the hull, which is currently not correct, this goes for most MBTs mind you.
Well to take it from the top:
- Until you can provide the source directly saying that it was in fact comparable, I’m taking that one with a grain of salt, because the only instance I’ve found Lindstrom commenting on DU is again that it was more volume efficient (aka taking up less space). Which to me implies barring completely a new composite scheme with new materials and virtually no wasted space it would be hard pressed to match DU’s KE protection on the turrets without the turret being longer.
- XM1E1 is what led to the M1A1, not the M1A2, much less the SEP or SEPv2. You’d want to be looking at Block II P3I M1 Abrams (at least for the M1A2), which had if I remember correctly a couple of proposed armor packages providing a KE increase on the LFP that were rejected by Gaijin on the grounds that none of them were implied to have been implemented.
That particular armor package in the bug report that got forwarded is sourced from DTIC ADA300522, Ballisticians in War and Peace Volume 3, by John T Fraiser. Seen here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf and had around 35% KE increase and 25% SC (shaped charge) increase.
Imagine trying to lock onto a plane that less than 2km at you, and your stinger missile wont lock on. Oh and don’t talk about stats with a vehicle, whe nyour stats aren’t much better than mines
They had a source years ago, they ignored it.
Britian has the skink, the falcon, the za-35 and a 20mm and a 23mm cannon both at 4.0BR - 5.3 BR
Japan never had good anti air, this isnt a game problem, this was a real world problem. No one knows why the Imperials Japanese burned all their tank blueprints.
Lindström does clearly indicate they tested both armour types and were provided with the information necessary.
DU can be replaced with similar materials like tungsten alloys.
Either way, the weight speaks for itself and the results as well.
I didn’t say it was, but it clearly indicates that hull protection increases were not considered particularly important relative to turret improvements and other considerations.
M1 is already quite front heavy with the DU turret inserts, increasing volume of the front hull is nigh impossible without reducing the already limited driver’s space or extending the hull forward which would be clearly visible.
I’ve seen this, they never adopted this improved armour (no proof to say they did).
When you look at the citation, you’ll see you can’t even find it online.
It may even have been armour intended for TTB.
There’s budget lists for every FY from 1996 that you can go through, they list what parts are being changed in some detail except from like 2009 on or something like that.
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Budget-Materials/#fy-20002001
They don’t list hull armour improvement when they start upgrading to SEPs.
Only things like driver’s hatch interlock etc.
We’re actually still waiting on the 250% CE upgrade to turret sides that got bug reported on dev server amusingly enough.
4 Likes
The stats thing was more about the M1, which paints a totally different picture. (top are mine, bottom are yours)
Which were only added in late 2021 and 2022. After which Gaijin started to address other SPAA holes. They are identifying SPAA holes in different trees and than just yeet 2-3 new SPAAs into that hole to fill it up in close succession.
This already happened with the US 9.0-11.7 hole, the Britain/Russia/Japan mid tier hole and is now being done to France.
So for the SEPv2 we know it has DU as the SEP had DU, which shared the same hull as the M1A1 SA, which we know has DU as per one of the sources Count_Trackula provided earlier. I’m not sure how this does anything other than suggest the SEPv2 has DU.
1 Like