Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

[scavenjer]

@Daniel8599

Until you can provide the source directly saying that it was in fact comparable, I’m taking that one with a grain of salt, because the only instance I’ve found Lindstrom commenting on DU is again that it was more volume efficient (aka taking up less space). Which to me implies barring completely a new composite scheme with new materials and virtually no wasted space it would be hard pressed to match DU’s KE protection on the turrets without the turret being longer.

Lindström does clearly indicate they tested both armour types and were provided with the information necessary.
DU can be replaced with similar materials like tungsten alloys.
Either way, the weight speaks for itself and the results as well.

@Daniel8599

XM1E1 is what led to the M1A1, not the M1A2, much less the SEP or SEPv2. You’d want to be looking at Block II P3I M1 Abrams (at least for the M1A2), which had if I remember correctly a couple of proposed armor packages providing a KE increase on the LFP that were rejected by Gaijin on the grounds that none of them were implied to have been implemented.

I didn’t say it was, but it clearly indicates that hull protection increases were not considered particularly important relative to turret improvements and other considerations.
M1 is already quite front heavy with the DU turret inserts, increasing volume of the front hull is nigh impossible without reducing the already limited driver’s space or extending the hull forward which would be clearly visible.

@Daniel8599

That particular armor package in the bug report that got forwarded is sourced from DTIC ADA300522, Ballisticians in War and Peace Volume 3, by John T Fraiser. Seen here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf and had around 35% KE increase and 25% SC (shaped charge) increase.

I’ve seen this, they never adopted this improved armour (no proof to say they did).
When you look at the citation, you’ll see you can’t even find it online.
It may even have been armour intended for TTB.

There’s budget lists for every FY from 1996 that you can go through, they list what parts are being changed in some detail except from like 2009 on or something like that.
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Budget-Materials/#fy-20002001
They don’t list hull armour improvement when they start upgrading to SEPs.
Only things like driver’s hatch interlock etc.

[scavenjer]

QLFutureReqs.pdf

[Daniel8599]

We’re actually still waiting on the 250% CE upgrade to turret sides that got bug reported on dev server amusingly enough.

[_Renzo]

@sartt

Imagine trying to lock onto a plane that less than 2km at you, and your stinger missile wont lock on. Oh and don’t talk about stats with a vehicle, whe nyour stats aren’t much better than mines

The stats thing was more about the M1, which paints a totally different picture. (top are mine, bottom are yours)

@sartt

Britian has the skink, the falcon, the za-35 and a 20mm and a 23mm cannon both at 4.0BR - 5.3 BR
Japan never had good anti air, this isnt a game problem, this was a real world problem. No one knows why the Imperials Japanese burned all their tank blueprints.

Which were only added in late 2021 and 2022. After which Gaijin started to address other SPAA holes. They are identifying SPAA holes in different trees and than just yeet 2-3 new SPAAs into that hole to fill it up in close succession.

This already happened with the US 9.0-11.7 hole, the Britain/Russia/Japan mid tier hole and is now being done to France.

[Necronomica]

The ones tested were different from the ones offered in terms of protection.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

So for the SEPv2 we know it has DU as the SEP had DU, which shared the same hull as the M1A1 SA, which we know has DU as per one of the sources Count_Trackula provided earlier. I’m not sure how this does anything other than suggest the SEPv2 has DU.

[_Renzo]

@Stona_WT

but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents.

So from the second day of me owning the SEPv2 ( first day was mostly queueing with Germany) until now my winrate has dropped 19%.

I guess the effect of that reload is kicking any time now right? Right?

[Mytho-GR1]

@_Renzo

I guess the effect of that reload is kicking any time now right? Right?

Welcome to Challenger 2 club where you have faster reload so you must be better right

[_Renzo]

Having now played the 2A7V for a decent amount, it honestly feels unfair to play tanks like the wA7V and Strv 122s.

They feel so ridiculously strong and survivable, and here I play against Arietes, Leclercs, Merkava Mk.4s, Type 10s, Challengers and Abramses that are all super easy to one shot. I wouldn’t really call any of them survivable anymore at all lol.

[Mytho-GR1]

Arietes have it the worst its harder to not pen them then to pen them

[Mytho-GR1]

@_Renzo

Challengers

the spall line we have is only on the upper front plate and turret so it doesn’t protect much

[x_Shini]

funny how the leopard supposedly did the worst in the test but was chosen in the end lol or is it backwards stating 1place gets 1 and the winner is the one with the lowest points? honestly reads very confusing to me

[x_Shini]

remember how the whole german community said its to early for the 2A7V and that is not even with gajin giving its whole capabilities. Spall liners was a mistake of gajin, initialy only wanting to give them to the T-90M was just stupid. Leopard being the biggest western export just made it well known and the easiest to find information on

Problem is now the beast it let loose so to say and of course we gonna try to get it as close to its original

[Mytho-GR1]

@x_Shini

Problem is now the beast it let loose so to say and of course we gonna try to get it as close to its original

The beast is strong

[Necronomica]

Yes, it’s not points, it’s placement.

[x_Shini]

ahhh thanks for clarifiyng, they realy could have choosen a better way to display that but oh well

[sartt]

@_Renzo

The stats thing was more about the M1, which paints a totally different picture. (top are mine, bottom are yours)

Ahh but what you don’t see is the amount of RP i’ve gotten. My playstyle with the M1 Abrams is to get RP, not try to pixel hunt a T80 BVM or a leo 2a5 in a tank that can’t even survive a hit, which is why its over tiered and should even be over 9.7, oh and i respawn multiple times in a match with my abrams, not once.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

You quite litterally pointed out the pattern here. They identify a gap in their opinion and then overbombard it with new SPAA. After that they move on to another gap.

The US 9.0-11.7 SPAA gap that used to exist is also a prime example of this.

My point is, the US has had that gap for nearly as long as Russia and for longer then both France and the UK, and yet they will be one of the last to get an SPAA addition.

Also Gaijin has known about the US SPAA issue for a while as it has been a decent topic for a while, remember Gaijin’s attempt to “fix” the US’s SPAA issue was by adding in the M42 and M19s alternating fire:

[_Renzo]

@sartt

which is why its over tiered and should even be over 9.7

You really are delusional if you think this, or have a massive skill issue.

It’s litterally already one of the best 10.3 MBTs in game.

Also what kind of stat is RP earned? So you just hide in the back all day waiting for people to leave you alone so you can cap points?

[_Renzo]

@x_Shini

Problem is now the beast it let loose so to say and of course we gonna try to get it as close to its original

Gaijin can always nerf the reload like what they did when the 2A6 and 122B got added and stomped hard, seeing as reload changes have always been a balancing tool.

Same for ammo, it’s fine to leave it with DM53 as ammo is also a balancing tool.

I don’t disagree that it should be in game at least somewhat reflecting reality, but don’t be suprised to see nerfs on certain stats.