Ah, I see
Yeah I agree.
I was mostly just poking fun of their line that the faster reload would make the Abrams far more effective against all opponents (which is somewhat true, even if I don’t fully agree, it surely didn’t make the situation of playing top tier US any better), and that they would consider giving M829A3 if things didn’t get better.
So Gaijin are you going to do something to actually help make US top tier a bit better for the actually decent players or was that a lie to? are you just content with their super low winrate?
EDIT: Fun fact. I queued most of the launch week/weekend with Germany as the US, so my winrate was around 74% in the launch weekend after I got the SEPv2. Since then my winrate has dropped by nearly 15%.
My argument: side hull has no DU.
Front hull does.
Maybe, but your source you gave doesn’t clearly suggest that either.
If we already agree that the mentions of “side” in that document all refer to side turret armor, then that’s already a clear example then that sometimes they include and sometimes they drop the “turret” detail from the phrase. Thus, similarly, “front DU armor” there might be “front TURRET DU armor” with the word turret just dropped, as they dropped it in one place when referring to side turret armor.
(Also I agree with Gaijin in their post today on this particular source, that a license does not clearly tell you which vehicles they’re using the license on if any. Possibly experimental or prototype ones only"
Is it even possible?
Even if the Ju 288 problem is gone, people who need to grind without skills will just switch the bombers they play such as Do 217.
If you were an old player, you should remember that people used to spam Do 217 or Yer-2 for grinding.
we don’t. i’ve explicitly stated otherwise many times.
Just noticed that they deleted my reply saying their reasoning is asinine and tone-deaf so I will say it again.
Gaijin’s reasoning to gut the Abrams, Leopards, Challengers, Arietes, and Merkavas are asinine and tone-deaf. They really are begging for another boycott now.
3 Likes
You: “My argument: side hull has no DU.”
Also you: “Here’s a source clearly talking about some sort of side armor”
Oh so you must agree it means the side turret armor. You: “No”
Uhhhh? So you don’t think it’s referring to side turret AND you don’t think it’s referring to side hull… Do you think it’s side… track armor? There aren’t really any other “sides” LEFT for it to be referring to, lol
Where did i say this?
to clarify, the source i linked talks about BOTH turret sides AND hull sides, but only specifies DU for turret sides, i.e not DU armor in hull sides. BUT it mentions DU for front hull.
the reason its hull is that they specify “turret side” and “side” separately and thus would have specified “turret front” as well if they did not mean hull.
You guys have a way of upsetting everyone all the time. What about the Chinese tank fix?
1 Like
??? That was explicitly your whole point in posting it: Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft - #852 by Necronomica
If you agreed that the DU was never in the side hull, then your source does actually the exact opposite of what you originally claimed it does.
It actually in that case proves that they are IN-consistent with their wording, and sometimes mention the “turret” part out loud, and sometimes don’t, since they say it both ways there, and since you think both are referring to side turret armor (since you don’t think side hull armor exists)
Therefore the same people who inconsistently bother to mention “turret” or not when talking about the side turret, are also are liable to only sometimes mention “turret” for the front, as well, and sometimes not mention that word, even if still talking about the turret front.
BUT it mentions DU for front hull.
No, it doesn’t. It just says “front armor” NOT “front hull armor”. And again, since they showed they are inconsistent in specifying “turret” or not on the side, they could easily be talking about “front [turret] armor” when they vaguely say “front armor” as well, the same way
So you guys think the 1994’s test data is a reliable source for a tank which is produced in 2019? What a great joke.¯_(ツ)_/¯
4 Likes
Can we at least get 12.7 BR so I don’t see AIMs and Clickbaits etc…? I didn’t spend thousands of hours grinding trees all the way up only to get mommy’s credit card one death leavers, it’s getting ridiculous.
I always liked toptier because this wasn’t really a thing there, now I might aswell stay in the 10.0 hellpit, there’s no difference.
1 Like
just a reminder of what pairing with toptier american wallet warrior teams looks like, and for some fricking reason i always get them as teammates
2 Likes
I had this from a US perspective. got a 74% winrate in launch weekend by queueing my SEPv2 and US lineup with Germany, lost 15% of that winrate today and it’s still falling.
Even 6 kill games aren’t enough to win.
I don’t have 12.3 plane in german lineup so i probably see 11.3 more often, AIMs and Clickbaits are in the hangar by the time i make it to second cap, always
1 Like
jesus christ, I NEVER CLAIMED DU ARMOR IN SIDE HULL. i claimed DU in Front hull. which was my entire original claim. how you understood it as something else i have no clue… the entire argument for “side” vs “side turret” is only to prove that “front” means front hull and NOT front turret.
One thing I hope the devs take into consideration is protection in an arc, this has been severally misrepresented in game, not just the latest MBTs, but in fact a great many vehicles even IFVs.
One such example is the Strf90C which has according to IBD and Rickard Lindström (a source Gaijin has openly used) protection from medium caliber APFSDS, RPGs, IEDs and anti-tank mines.
Below are a series of pictures showing this “performance” (or lack thereof) in-game
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849008014704740/image.png?ex=65986198&is=6585ec98&hm=d1a9c6354d6e8abd7e83911dcc0de303c5b07ded29eeea70e240a3de22853d88&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849008589320322/image.png?ex=65986198&is=6585ec98&hm=5cf08941c531fae71845d3bf5c5510f5dd4c08ec1a2833dc33c0ef488a6a0aea&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849020303999006/image.png?ex=6598619b&is=6585ec9b&hm=fa49001e6871c6d9caccb877d6064c58ae61d0907d27b1c55c76489cfa8083aa&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849045956378775/image.png?ex=659861a1&is=6585eca1&hm=e5161bc329a1c6c0b73320372dc95a89ef57a316fb3f9b21925a5eec7f56906f&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849572932927638/image.png?ex=6598621f&is=6585ed1f&hm=eff5709b1533fbf010f248fa487cf0251ec55607fd46a0e633c8e2a751121368&
https://ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm
According to Lindström, protection from “medium-heavy” APFSDS and HEAT was achieved, so I used common NATO STANAG 4569 threats, in this case 30mm APFSDS from 500m in a frontal 60° arc and PG-9 (300mm penetration).
As you can see, the required level of protection is not achieved, even for these rather low levels (specifically the HEAT protection).
I will link the STANAG below:
While it does not mention level 6, that’s because this was a later addition.
A powerpoint by IBD from 2013 shows Strv90C and mentions arc protection against KE and HEAT
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849093469446144/image.png?ex=659861ad&is=6585ecad&hm=8840cd5d0ded0051382dbede16b0e05ebb9558407c7dbbccc45f2952a499624e&
However, many modern vehicles like Puma, Lynx, Vilkas, VBCI etc all have some “STANAG” protection level which is often not met in-game.
Particularly in a frontal arc.
Other vehicles like the C2A1 have been in the game for YEARS and still have not received the protection they are supposed to have, again it concerns protection in an arc and especially KE projectiles.
Protection from PG-7N (400mm penetration), 5" EFP (70-120mm KE as they behave more like KE penetrators) and “medium caliber APFSDS” which is in almost all cases 30mm APFSDS.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849116672344144/image.png?ex=659861b2&is=6585ecb2&hm=6998544e1e29f1b742b9885b5b2a183f3070af9890fbf87675b758ce41282f11&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849140558905485/image.png?ex=659861b8&is=6585ecb8&hm=6e9598d9fbd08dcbe3c8ebcce7cb05e77a5425d2e40ae8d76815a36a4c1d73e7&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187849163262664785/image.png?ex=659861bd&is=6585ecbd&hm=c12345829c76c176b64b3d002a602e3374162bf568b264858335809e9ac052b9&
The powerpoint from IDB also shows protection for the third generation and it specifies that both leopard 2A5/6 and Strv 122 use this.
Protection from PG-7VR (~750mm) is possible on the track skirt:
Once again, this is not achieved in-game and even the turret is vulnerable in quite a few areas.
The Strv 122 “Evolution” is also in this powerpoint, which is the “fourth” generation.
This package was specifically designed to combat RPGs and EFPs, yet in-game it can’t even stop the PG-9 (300mm) despite the powerpoint already showing that the 2nd generation was capable of stopping this threat and more (up to at 400mm).
I will point out that the turret bustle package is most likely a form of SLAT armour composite blocks as there is some kind of weird texture on it and they mention this in the article.
Also, almost NONE of the mine protection modules actually work!
M107 HE which the mine protection kit on the the leos was specifically designed to defeat.
When it comes to the Leopard 2A5/6/7V/PSO, there are many, many, many things wrong, but I will stick with the protection compared to the Strv 122s for the moment.
The “Swedish” armour solution that you can see in the Swedish trials was not in-fact designed by Akers, but by IBD which was the senior partner and the company they licensed the armour from.
The reason why it’s called the “Swedish armour” is because they CHOSE a different armour combination than the TVM which was sent to them by Germany and which Germany INITIALLY intended to adopt (699 of them).
When these plans were re-assessed, they decided against upgrading the oldest B tech leopards (hence the B tech of the TVM even though it was built on a batch 8 or C tech leopard 2) with the full up-armour package of the D-2 level and instead opted for a reduced number of upgraded tanks using C tech hulls and B tech turrets (which were upgraded with C tech internals, just like the Strv 122), and they used the same add-on as the Strv 122 for the turret front and sides to increase protection over their previous plan.
Long story short, as you can CLEARLY see from the pictures of TVM, Strv 122 and Leopard 2A5, the add-on armour of the Strv 122 and leopard 2A5 is identical and so should the protection be.
Confirmed by following:
KMW slide showcasing 2A5 having slightly lower frontal protection than Strv 122 due to lack of hull add-on, while Leopard 2A6M is considered equal (hull add-on included), Leopard 2A7+/PSO having higher protection!
It can clearly bee seen how much thinner and less angled the TVM add-on armour modules are compared to pictures you can of the Strv 122/2A5
Even so, I would like to point out yet again, that the protection in a frontal arc for the Strv 122 (and by extension the 2A5/6/7V/PSO) is incorrect even according to the Swedish trials:
As you can clearly see, in the listed arcs, no protection is achieved and as I have proven previously, tandem warheads were considered!
In a 35° frontal arc the KE protection for the hull side skirts should be: 700mm
In a 50° frontal arc the HEAT protection for the hull side skirts should be: 1200mm
Also, the whole turret is vulnerable to this 1200mm penetration ATGM, even though it was tested against this type of threat.
But the Strv/leos are not the only ones that have incorrect frontal arc protection, let’s move on to the M1 abrams:
Thanks to 20th century platoons for this info!
As you can clearly see, the protection offered in a 50° frontal arc on the hull, specifically the parts covered by the heavy skirts does NOT meet the 350mm KE requirement (M735 was used IRL, but in-game the penetration at 0m doesn’t quite reach 350mm at 60°, this was the common method at the time of measuring penetration performance).
On the other hand, the performance of the LFP is actually overperforming somewhat.
Now, the SEP and SEPv2 both received ITSA (Improved Turret Side Armor), which was a 250% increase in protection for the crew compartment against RPGs and ATGMs.
This has not yet been implemented in-game on these models:
Now, as far as I can find, the “improved front armour” here refers to the fact that they are upgrading older tanks without DU to a standard that has DU, either way I was only able to confirm the existence of a turret side armour upgrade against RPGs and ATGMs, to at least the same level as the turret bustle (380mm), but likely a bit higher.
As for the spall liner, I was only able to find this:
Which means from the M1A1 on at least, it should have a spall liner inside the hull ammunition compartment.
There are plenty more examples and sources I can provide, but my previous attempts from years ago were ignored or rejected based on comments that come straight from NII STALI or other Russian authors that miss the point I am trying to show or prove.
I do not care about making “NATO” or certain nations OP or anything of that sort, I want the game to be at least somewhat realistic according to the information we have.
The introduction of spall liners and all these latest MBTs has been a mistake quite honestly and I predicted as much back in the day, but AT LEAST address the issues I have provided in this comment and let’s open a dialogue for further improvement to other vehicles.
Took a while to write this…
37 Likes
“Nah uh” Says the goobers
1 Like
Yes. I know. That’s the problem. That’s why your source does the opposite of what you wanted it to.
BECAUSE you don’t think it is talking about side hull armor (I KNOW you aren’t), you are therefore staring at clear evidence that the authors of this document do not consistently add the word “turret” when they are talking about turrets. Sometimes they use it. Sometimes they don’t bother.
So why on earth do you think they are suddenly 100% consistent about the use (or lack thereof) of “turret” when talking about the front?
This really is not that complicated…
the entire argument for “side” vs “side turret” is only to prove that “front” means front hull and NOT front turret.
And yet it obviously shows the exact opposite. Why on earth would you use “Side” vs “Side turret” INCONSISTENCY (since you think both terms refer to the turret), as evidence of how they must be CONSISTENT later on in another spot?
If they’re inconsistent in one place, that means they’re unreliable in the other place too