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.
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?
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
and i see you are completely satisfied with current effectiveness of merkavas, ch2 and ariete…
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
Okay this does very much read like an early april fools joke lmao.
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.
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
ok I retract my earlier statment of the devs not being incompetent they clearly didnt understand the argument that was made
are you surprised? any change from the developer is explained by “balance”, but when the players demand changes, they must provide 100500 secret documents
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.
@Stona_WT how the hell can the swedish study tell you sth about the about the protective effectiveness of the Leopard 2A7V which was produced in 2019. They have no correlation at al!!! We gave you viable sources that the armor of the 2A7V is better then the outdated swedish study. This isnt acceptable why do you guys blatantly favour the swedish tech tree???
We already proved the M1A2 Sep v1 and further has 600mm of ke protection or more, besides do you really thing the US army wouldn’t upgrade the hull armour at all from the FIRST ABRAMS. How do you think it gained 15 tons? You added the weight of the armour but not the armour. We don’t need a new shell we need the armour to be accurate, besides m829A2 is already severely under preforming. Also do you really think the army would make technologically superior armour just for 5 training units? This is ridiculous and you know it Gaijian.
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.
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.
Going to love seeing the 25+ years out of date sources they use to deny a tank its actual armor.
It’s just the usual 1 step forward, 3 steps back with Russian Bias foolishness mixed in.
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
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.
“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
