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.
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
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
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…
“Nah uh” Says the goobers
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
you have absolutely no basis for this, whatsoever.
its an actual legal document, looked over by lawyers before being okayed, its required to not be ambiguous, its dealing with radioactive materials. they absolutely do not just wing it with word choice. do you have any idea how important it is to have EXACTLY the correct wording within the legal system in the us?
I DONT!
this is so frustrating. at what point do i ever state that i think both of the mentions are referring to turret???
i stated the opposite.
Again:
Side HULL: no DU (thus not needing contaminant storage, but might need DU storage because need for removing other DU parts to get to side hull)
Side TURRET: DU-contact (needing contaminant storage)
Front HULL: DU (needing both contaminant storage and storage for DU)
And yet it clearly in some places says just plain “side armor” and in other places bothers to say “side turret armor”:
Pick one:
They ARE talking about side hull armor as well (which you keep vehemently denying)?
They are not talking about the hull, only the side turret, the whole time, but they are AMBIGUOUS and inconsistent about how they do it?
BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! one is side turret the other is side hull, as i’ve stated the entire time. how hard of a concept is that to understand?
oh ffs… where did i deny this? quote it.
this is the one ive been saying this entire time.
no.
the other is side hull
you 5 minutes ago:
jesus christ, I NEVER CLAIMED DU ARMOR IN SIDE HULL.
You have severe amnesia or…?
do you know difference between NO DU and HAS DU?
do you have reading comprehension?
both mentions of Side (turret and hull, say NON-DU).
i’ve never claimed DU in side hull.
Why would anyone need a nuclear materials license to install, uninstall, or service the side hull armor in a vehicle if the side hull armor has no uranium in it at all?
You can just do that without a license, bro
cant you read?
There ARE no DU parts to “get to the side hull” if the side hull has no uranium in it.
you know THE TURRET WE ALREADU KNOW HAS DU IN IT? (this is confirmed and already in the game and is also stated in the original post)
(but NOT in the sides)
Edit:
have you ever had to change a lightbulb on a newer model car whare you have to disassemble half the car to get to the light fixture? yaeh, that.
Yes what about it?
the turret that probably needs to be removed to be able to remove the side hull armor plates? otherwise the turret is above the sides thus making it not possible to lift them out?
do you think they are taken off from outside or something?
So in your copium-addled mind, you believe that the Abrams tank requires you to remove the turret to access the side armor, but somehow does NOT require you to remove the turret to maintain… the floor, the tracks, the radiators, the electrical equipment, the engine, the fuel tanks, the transmission, or ANYTHING else? Since by your logic, any and all other such things would have to be part of the nuclear materials license, but aren’t?
Alternatively to this near-magical construction of the whole tank, they could, you know, just have not used an implied word once (which would not have confused anyone with the actual plans). But that’s RIDICULOUS lol
