Do you really think these vehicles are weak?
Despite having both German Tornados researched and bought, I have not yet touched them once. I just won´t fly a plane that is at a disadvantage in every single metric to either planes at the same BR or higher. This is by far not the only plane I just won´t touch due to the unfair matchmaker. I would give them a try maybe in ARBEC, but nor in ARB.
I don´t know how long I will have the mental capacity to play the same planes against the same planes over and over and over again in a glorified 5 minute flustercluck TDM.
@Garbajin: Decompression needs to happen, this is not negotiable. I want muh cl13/sabre vs mig15/17 battles back without being 3rd partied by some su-25 or f-104 gremlin.
OH AND BY THE WAY! It is nigh time you´ve done something about the 6v6 BR6.0 problem due to the Ju 288 spam. It´s been 5 god damn years since this BR bracket has been destroyed. Remove the Junkers from the game or allow mixed MM - germany to play on both teams - or whatever I don´t care what it takes. Just FIX IT!!! You had 5 YEARS to come up with a solution!!!
1 Like
Ah yes the same evidence standard that they also so unilaterally applied to the T-80B huh?
1 Like
It is, you just don’t want to apply the same standards to suit your preconceived notions. The same reason you think the DU license is obvious and unquestionably proof in Abrams turrets is now very confusing and not proof that DU is in hulls. Despite the license being amended to give them the same status, and government documents showing that DOE energy armor was a part of frontal armor upgrades for all SEPs.
Then you like to distract, “but how much better?” “How did they do it?” “It’s not specific enough, even though they mention improved side turret armor, I’ll now suggest it’s not in the sides of the turret either.”
You aren’t happy the Abrams received DU armor packages in the hull and turret, with licenses, reports, and budget forms to prove it. So now you must try to dismiss all the evidence you aren’t happy with.
YES, ABSOLUTELY!
stop answering ANYONE who derail ANY topic.
its even part of the official forum guidelines:
Edit: and STOP answering with just statements without backing them up. start providing links to your claims, documents, images, anything. almost all of your posts are “you are wrong” and then people are just supposed to take your word for it?
that is NOT improving the discussion.
1 Like
I remember them justifying it back then by saying they had a couple of pictures of a T-80B prototype with thermals and like one document. Hell iirc only 1 T-80B ever received thermals from what I could find
The one we have in game isn’t that prototype btw, it is a production vehicle.
A few pictures (if we presume Gaijin doesn’t have more information, since they don’t show us their internal archives) prove that the T-80B can mount Agava. So go find proof that M1A2 SEP v1/v2 can mount DU hull arrays.
The original “MUH 5 HULLS” document said it they were placed in M1A1 HA hulls. With your logic, M1A1 HA hulls forward should get the DU hulls. I approve!
Because Gaijin has given us the same hull since M1A1/M1IP :D
5 Likes
I’m pretty sure they have found that proof.
1 Like
The license for 5 Abrams with DU in the hull (the february 2006) quite litterally state that said vehicles are located at army schools. So boom these 5 Abrams hulls can mount DU armor, so can others after 2006.
I know if’s not nice when the same logic for your Russian tanks is applied to NATO tanks.
1 Like
Me and another long time player are starting up a discord to document and raise awareness of a lot of the issues happening on the forums in relation to us/nato vehicles.
Here’s the link: WT-USA Research Group
2 Likes
Also, I’m going to want you to find at least 10 different sources, government requests, budget forms, reports, company statements, studies, and proof the MoD actually ordered and installed them in these very specific models from a certain year. Thanks.
1 Like
I’m glad you copied my take sir.
I do too.
This document specifies D.U. armour has been made since 1986 at the earliest.
I keep making my point.
1 Like
Its nice to see Gaijin transparency but backslash would be insane. It’s hard to believe that you still think Abrams didn’t get improved hull armour in a span of 40 years. It’s literally insane. @Count_Trackula @Kenny110 provided so many sources, gave photos of Pre production Abramses with steel plates welded to simulate added mass and you still wanna believe? Wtf actually. I have no more words. I will cut my money spent of this game after this, definitely.
2 Likes
Because they CAN make the DU turrets and have an unlimited license for them doesn’t mean they did…
Also, there have been some interesting finds regarding M1A1 hull improvements not involving DU, but I digress. We have documents showing DU inserts in M1A1 HA hulls, followed by unlimited hull licensing and budget records of improved frontal protection AND qualified SIDE TURRET protection using DOE armor. There is a distinction between what part of the turret got improved, on top of unqualified frontal protection. Other government documents state the SEP program put DU in the hull front as well.
2 Likes
We don’t know what Gaijin’s intending with Abrams armor currently.
We’re speculating, but I’ll continue batting for improved Abrams armor.
No matter how many baiters ignore us.
1 Like
This post and basically every point in it is pure BS. It’s not even about the game balance, although everyone who plays the game knows that the higher BR’s are needed, they can tweak reload rates and BR’s to their heart’s content so their spreadsheets will equal out. That’s not the point.
Actual problem is the bias of the developers against western technology, and it is crystal clear. Against all common sense, and even when presented with clear cut evidence, they just lie and make stuff up in order to not represent Abrams and Leopard honestly.
The fact that they can even think that Abrams gained 10t of weight and none of that improved the armor is laughable. Add to that every source that says that it has been improved.
Or that the armor of the Leopard 2A7V is somehow connected to and restricted by one prototype from 30 years ago. This is absurd.
This just shows the cognitive dissonance of the devs. It doesn’t have to make sense, it just needs to perform worse than that certain other nation.
2 Likes
This is what is making people angry:
T-serries has improvement on LITTERALLY every step.
Abrams has the same armor on every version since the M1A2.
i wonder about your sources for every incremental change on NEW Russian tanks and ERA. i highly doubt that you have access to those classified documents and thus must have made estimates. Why can’t you do the same for other tanks?
source:
5 Likes
I simply take the evidence provided at face value. If a document says “Improved protection” I don’t equate that with “Improved KE/CE RHAE for the hull and front turret composite arrays” because that’s not what it says.
“Improved protection” and “enchanced crew survivability” are extremely vague terms and can describe a very wide range of things which do not improve KE/CE RHAE in any meaningful way.
As an example, let’s say I put a 2mm thick Kevlar layer inside the composite, well done me I have “improved protection” and even “enchanced crew survivability” but I didn’t really improve the KE/CE RHAE did I.
It’s just vague nonsense, you need better evidence which is specific.