Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

[Freddie2706-live]

So far all the issues that have been “fixed” about the ch2 and I cannot stress the importance of the use of inverted commas, are the low speed steering and ess coming out the wrong hole. This has to be a joke. So far the devs have looked right over the mountain of concrete proof for armour improvements, gearbox changes and ammo placement.

[_Renzo]

@Stona_WT

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.

But now that the laughing part is over. You are going to show us the sources right on which the devs based this decision? Right?

Because we have seen a whole 1 source in the first report that Kenny made, but that was already countered by new sources for the SEPv2.

[TheMAD1626]

Going to love seeing the 25+ years out of date sources they use to deny a tank its actual armor.

[GNDM_Panzer]

It’s just the usual 1 step forward, 3 steps back with Russian Bias foolishness mixed in.

[Lord_Prism]

They just want Sweden to be a better Germany than Germany is at this point, otherwise they wouldnt be using a 20 year old study on a 2019 tank @Stona_WT @Smin1080p

[Jεcka]

@Stona_WT

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).

Oh, and you wanna talk about different armour packages?

Here it is;

Sitting on top of a Leopard 2 TVM (which last I checked, ISN’T THE 2A7V), do you notice anything strange… maybe how the geometry and shape of the add-ons is different?

How about looking at the production version then… from which the Strv 122 received its add-on modules?

The same armor that the Leopard 2A5/6 adopted? The TVM Mexas 3rd generation addon was never adopted.

Wooow, who would’ve thought, it’s IDENTICAL TO 122s, NO WAAAY.

Leopard 2A7V presented in the game is based on the “B” package. However, according to the data we have, this is not the case

So the base armor without the addon provides the 600+ KE armor value that is known from D-tech? In game thats currently not reflected.

[Lord_Prism]

“well these sources say something we dont agree with, so we will ignore them and continue to do what we where previously doing anyway” @Smin1080p @Stona_WT

[Zyszhao]

Still nothing for China. VT-4A1 is so weak though buffed, still unable to beat other 11.7s, while have so many other problems.

[Count_Trackula]

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/M1A2_Abrams_SEP_American_Main_Battle_Tank_(MBT)

Well, Gaijin isn’t getting any more money from me! :D

[warrma]

Another awful move by gaijin with 12.7 reply. NO SHIT 12.3 planes can fight each other just fine. BUT what 11.3 -11.7 experience and overall compression? Have you thought to give an anwser on why its not fun to fight 12.0 and 12.3 planes in a 11.3? The reply is most bland thing ever missing the real issue of 12.0 12.3s wtih vastly more modern weaponry being so low ruining experience for a lot of lower planes.

[Stormwolf7]

Oh they’ve certainly saved me any temptation for further expenditures.

They should’ve named the whole patch Click-Bait… not just the Premium M1A1 that’s worse than the tech tree variant.

[YaSen]

@Stona_WT

We’re currently studying and adding spall liners for Ariete tanks

OMG! Some kind of armor for Ariete tanks in WT, can’t believe it’s true, what about transformig of 5.5 t of WAR pack from “heavy air” type into actual armor?

[Stormwolf7]

Could you spoiler the sources?

[Daniel8599]

@Stona_WT

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.

Amazing. I’m truly impressed that I’ve dug up 3-4 different sources that estimate the Abrams has anywhere between 457mm of hull armor up to 750mm of hull armor on the LFP and you guys ignore all of them and refuse to implement any of them. At this point I’d even settle for Clancy’s Armored Cavalry source giving an estimate of 18-inches of RHA equivalent on the lower front plate. Next you’re going to tell me that the SEPv3 whenever you get around to adding it will have the exact same armor effectiveness.

Additionally how on earth would M829A3’s anti-ERA tip not actually make a difference in its ability to defeat ERA? Excuse me?

[AquaUselessGod]

I’m sorry devs, but armour talks aside, the conversation about the reload rate is so arbitrarily linked to win rates, it is severely affecting some tanks because of the link to win rates.

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.

Can we talk about how ONLY the Abrams gets the arbitrary 6.5s stock/5s ace reload rate for a 105mm and 120mm cannon (with the exception of Vickers Mk.1 and British 120mm cannons) while there are other tanks of similar caliber and shell weight that reloads at 7.8s stock/6s aced and even worse still at 8.7s stock/6.7s aced for a few outliers like Merkava Mk.1 through 4, Leopard 2K, AMX-32/40, OF-40, AMX-30, Leopard 1 and so on.

This is probably the worst take ever “in the name of balance”.

Standardise all known non-autoloading NATO 105mm and 120mm cannons (M256, Rheinmetall 120mm, L7A1, L7A3, M68)

• Yes, all standardise 6.5s stock/5s aced
• Yes, all standardise 7.8s stock/6s aced
• No, bad idea

[Lord_Prism]

@Daniel8599

Additionally how on earth would M829A3’s anti-ERA tip not actually make a difference in its ability to defeat ERA?

Because it would actually make Relikt equipped tanks vulnerable for once, and the Russian MOD cant have that happen

[Armamalvada]

Are you surprised? The Swedish trials is what they argumented to keep the Leclerc on it’s Toyota truck level of armour.

[VF21_Freelancers]

@Stona_WT

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.

Trueeeeeee.
Enjoy to die to R-27s, R-73s, AIM-9Ms, in your Phantoms 🤡

[Lord_Prism]

Gaijin once again makes an incredibly tone deaf reply to a myriad of issues the community is passionate about, color me surprised

[asd072]

You forgot to mention “without BVR” because aim7 right now is barely usable trash