I stand with US and German mains in getting appropriate armour corrections for M1 and A7V, but this happens to be true.
EDIT: In order to not clog up this thread, I will reply to your response here.
MEXAS is a modular system, not a material. Åkers Krutbruk could very well have engineered an armour material, either alone or in cooperation with IDB, which was integrated into MEXAS. Strv 122 was up-armoured during the trials using (at least partly) Swedish-designed modules. This is supported by very trustworthy sources, such as the one I linked above (the author being literally the project leader for Strv 122 protection development).
So you guys increase the weight of every subsequent Abrams variant by tons… but then you state the addon armor inserts dont exist? Where does that extra weight come from Gaijin? Where?
Probably the same thing they did with Leopard 2A7V and the Abrams tanks:
“We are right, you and your several dozen sources are wrong, screw you.”
Seriously. On the one hand, I am glad they are transparent enough to say it to ourfaces now, on the other hand, I am greatly disappointed to see how they butcher vehicles by misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
On the bright side, now that we know what’s wrong with them, we can correct them more easily. That’s why I am kinda happy about this communication. On the other hand, I am not too optimistic that they will listen anymore.
Wouldnt be surprised if Gaijin actually thinks thats the Leo 2 TVM MAX (also known as the Leopard 2 Improved) and Leopard 2A7V (V for Verbessert which translates to improved) are the same tank at this point.
Ignoring how the armour was in works since at least 1988, and was a part of a wider family of armour, but somehow it was completely developed by Akers… which later acquired a license for it, lmao.
Huge kick in the balls for everyone who worked very hard on the Abrams/2A7V bug reports. Also how would M829A3 not make a difference if it literally was designed to counter heavy ERA???
9.0 is fully relieved with just a 0.3 increase of all the 10.0s.
You can combine 12.0 & 11.0 since increasing 12.0 to 12.3 fixes the 11.0s.
And 10.0 - 11.0 is already fixed.
To make almost all old 9.0 jets playable, they need to stop facing supersonic jets.
How bad it was for supersonic jets to face subsonic jets can be seen what the MiG-19PT, Mitsubishi T-2, F-4C in 2019 and the F-104A and EEL in 2020 did against subs.
There is literally nothing the Hunter F.1 can do against all supersonic aircraft except full commit headon, and the Venom FB.4 facing the MiG-19 is just a joke.
To make them playable, almost all supersonic aircraft and advanced missile carriers such as Yak-38s, All 9.7 harriers, A-4N, Hunter F.6 etc would need to be BR 10.3 or higher, but there is not enough room to do that with the BR cap at 13.0.
At best, when they get a full uptier game, the only aircraft they can face should be late subsonic like the Shenyang F-5, G.91YS, J32B, Hunter FGA.9 etc.
You don’t believe the Abrams gained more armor but you did decide to randomly add tons of weight to it anyways, where does that come from?
You also do not believe the 2A7 gained more armor, surely they spend decades making a worse version of a vehicle… this is not Russia we’re talking about.
We’re closely monitoring the data and believe that at the moment, there’s no need for an increase to the current Battle Rating threshold for aviation from 12.3 to 12.7
What are you monitoring, because surely it’s not the same game we’re playing.
First thing to get out of the way, like many others I need to say that this transparency is legitimately good thing and I hope it wont be discouraged in the future just because some people cant be civil.
That being said, I do want to hear the explanation as to how Abrams got so much heavier without getting upgraded armor.
