well ok atleast we know Gaijin isnt incompetent now they just disregard any sources they dont like
62 Likes
Will be an interesting read considering that even the M1E1 seemingly had a steel slab added to the front hull to simulate extra weight.
39 Likes
It’s a consolation prize for Gaijin pretending that 70% of the Frontal profile of the tank hasn’t been updated since 1980…
68 Likes
Would rather just have the actual armor the tank has.
39 Likes
Still insisting that the Abrams doesn’t have spall liner?
Lol. Lmao even.
84 Likes
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?
Edit:
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.
75 Likes
where is leclerc buff?
9 Likes
Where do they say this? I only see them referencing the hull armor upgrade people have been asking for a long time
2 Likes
100% yes
So the devs really think that a laughable 1 second reload increase will suddenly make the SEPv2 a worthy addition and a 2A7V/Strv 122B+ counterpart?
This is a joke right? Seeing the lolpen the Abrams spends most of the battle with a dead loader anyway.
56 Likes
Yes, but no. The reason behind them need to go up in BR because of ARH that we will get very soon. I doubt there will be jump from 12.3 to 13.0.
@Stona_WT Are there any plans to create jump in br for new jets with amraams(or rise in br whatever gets it) and put them to 13.0?
Or idea is to put 11.7 jets that don’t even have missiles with IRCCM or as agile as bus(f-14A, Harrier GR.7, F-4 ej kai, J-8F, Tornado, Mirage 2000C-S5, JA37D) against these beasts?
13 Likes
also when will u fix that shoot at leo2pso and a7v’s ufp at 80° or even 82° still wont bounce,thats not happened on strv122,thats makes no sense
17 Likes
and i see you are completely satisfied with current effectiveness of merkavas, ch2 and ariete…
29 Likes
Have tried contacting the Bundeswehr, for example?
If you take information from the Swedish tender, then both samples should be the same in almost all aspects of armor protection; even a fool should understand this.
No, it’s not logical, again, where are any documents on this matter? Or are you making it up out of thin air again?
What is the difference between the 2A6 and 2A7V turrets so that there is less armor there?
Scam for 70 dollars
70 Likes
Okay this does very much read like an early april fools joke lmao.
43 Likes
You were provided with reliable information on the armour upgrades in several reports in regards to the 2A7V, which also spoke of the requirements created for the vehicle being;
“Hull has to provide equeal protection to the turret”
Blockquote
Firstly, you can see that the Swedish tender is for a vehicle equipped with a B-technology armour and MEXAS-H add-on armour, meaning you’ve compared a vehicle created 30 years after the prototype, with a newer internal armour package, and likely an improved add-on armour package over the original MEXAS, to a prototype with an internal package INFERIOR to what you’ve given to the Leopard 2A5.
THAT IS ILLOGICAL.
The Swedes didn’t develop “own, completely new, reinforced armour package”, their vehicles were completely identical to TVM max/min in terms of protection (they weight the exact same for god’s sake, both were 62.5 tons), as they were based on those (C-technology + MEXAS-H add-on package), this is easily verifiable considering the fact the difference between B & C-technology armours is around ~80mm’s, the exact difference between the SVT (which was built for life-fire armour trials, i.e the vehicle compared to the TVM “Swedish Solution”).
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.
A lot of words to explain completely nothing. Explain how is it possible for it to provide the exact same amount of hull protection then? You have clearly forced the vehicle to fit protection standards of a much older vehicle, based on your own inability to estimate based on requirements set out for a vehicle.
Oh, and you also wanna talk about the vehicle matching the Swedish graphs, explain this then @Stona_WT;
It clearly is not matching ANYTHING.
You haven’t even noticed you’re using the Protection Analysis in the wrong way, have you even checked out the “consider camera angle” box? Doesnt’ seems so… because the upper plate doesn’t protect against 600mm in the slightest, in fact it makes the tank less armoured than it should be.
You have reliable evidence, but you are refusing to read it - because the requirements are crystal clear. Hull = turret, meaning whatever protection the turret provides, the hull will as well.
I’ve completely lost my trust in the devs as of today, this is quite frankly ridiculous that we, the playerbase have to put up with THIS level of ignorancy.
In fact, this isn’t even ignorance at this point, YOU ARE ACTIVELY GASLIGHTING YOUR PLAYERBASE.
144 Likes
Just finish the Tornado (all of them) and it would perform significantly better. Only having 56 CMs, when it should have 56 flares and 1200 chaff is no small buff. Same for its missing A2G radar systems, other defensive systems like ECM and other non-guided weapons it could carry (such as CBUs). Not even the Flight model is finished. It still has placeholder code.
All tornados are pretty weak at the moment, and its 100% because they are WIP
TLDR. Even though the Gripen is more modern and advanced than US and USSR counterparts. Its not made by US and USSR and so we are nerfing it artificially so that its weaker than everything else at its BR
22 Likes
ok I retract my earlier statment of the devs not being incompetent they clearly didnt understand the argument that was made
37 Likes
are you surprised? any change from the developer is explained by “balance”, but when the players demand changes, they must provide 100500 secret documents
30 Likes
This is one of the most tone deaf things you have ever said. All the issue forum posts say otherwise. You refuse to implement this change because it will affect win rates. cough US Win rate is 42%. A buffed reload and new dart will not increase the Abrams survivability when its turret ring and LFP are insanely weak.
Here are the forum posts that state your information is incorrect and flat out WRONG.
86 Likes