Devs: 'Manufacturer is unreliable source for their own vehicles'

In the dev’s recent response to the hull armour of the M1 Abrams, they stated that the source Боевые машины Уралвагонзавода. Танк Т-72 (Combat vehicles of Uralvagonzavod. Tank T-72) which was used in M1A2 hull armour bug reports should be dismissed because:

This book cannot be considered a reliable source… [it] contains errors for the characteristics of Soviet tanks in comparison to other open source data available.

Here is the full document: Upload Files | Free File Upload and Transfer Up To 10 GB

Now let’s look at this document closely and I will show why I find the devs’ statement very funny…

Who is the publisher of this document?

Spoiler

Uralvagonzavod, the company that manufactures most of the Russian tank fleet.

Who are the authors of this document?

Spoiler

S.V. Ustyantsev is a historian, but D.G. Kolmakov is a design engineer at Uralvagonzavod! But don’t take my word for it, take the word of Nikolay Malykh who was the CEO of Uralvagonzavod who also wrote the foreword for this document.

image

Who is on the editorial board?

Spoiler

A quick Google search found that the editor-in-chief of this document is none other than the Chief Engineer of Uralvagonzavod!

Other members of the editorial board retained various positions in the company including as engineers.

Now unless the devs are really going to say that the manufacturer is an unreliable source for their own vehicles; furthermore, that the people who designed their vehicles have no idea what they’re talking about, we can see that the devs initial statement is a cop-out.

Now, I’m a reasonable person. I will retract my criticisms if the devs provide ample evidence as to why they believe this document should be dismissed.

***


Now why is this document so important? As a part of discussing the T-72, this document also compares it to its Western competitors such as the M1A2 SEP v1…

Spoiler

image

Translated from Russian: "We pay special attention to the comparison with the most numerous competitor, the American tank ‘Abrams’ in its most advanced modification M1A2 SEP [v1], which appeared in mass production already in the 21st century.

Furthermore, this document states "all types of [APFSDS] are unable to penetrate the frontal armour of the latest T-90S, Leopard, Leclerc or Abrams tanks at standard combat distances”.

Spoiler

image

This document even goes on to give estimates for the protection of these tanks!

Spoiler

The first set of numbers refers to the KE protection and CE protection of the turret. The second set of numbers refers to the KE protection and CE protection of the hull.
image

It even gives estimates for other NATO tanks that are either comparable to the Western information used to model armour in-game or would see an armour improvement where Western information has been lacking.

Spoiler

image

It goes without saying that NATO sources should always take precedence over Russian sources. However, this appears to be a blatant attempt by the devs to dismiss any case for NATO tanks getting their rightful armour.

16 Likes

yeah cause the people that want to sell you stuff would never lie to you, like vw, totaly trustworty when it comes to the stats off there engine exausts

1 Like

The British carried out an in depth evaluation of the M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 as potential contenders for their new tank (and were heavily involved in development of the M1A1’s armour), so the numbers in their declassified reports can be considered fairly trustworthy. Here’s a comparison of the British numbers and the numbers from that Russian source:

Turret Armour British Evaluation Russian Estimate
M1A1 460 KE
700 CE
480 - 500 KE
700 - 750 CE
Leopard 2A4 435 KE
780 CE
350 KE
600 CE
Challenger 1 430 KE
670 CE
530 - 540 KE
700 - 750 CE
Hull Armour British Evaluation Russian Estimate
M1A1 350 KE
750 CE
480 - 500 KE
700 - 750 CE
Leopard 2A4 435 KE
780 CE
350 KE
600 CE

While the Russians do get some numbers fairly close they are also frequently out by over 100 mm. So Gaijin is right to call it an unreliable source.

3 Likes

This is not the first time gaijin has done this. Just look at the mistral

To clarify, I dont think gaijin is stupid or anything and are way smarter than me and most people in this field but something doesn’t add up

2 Likes

I would argue that being the british testing was of an m1a1 while the russian estimates are for an m1a2 SEP this is not a valid comparison other than showing that russian tank designers believed the hull armor has been improved throughout the abrams service life

I was comparing the British evaluation of the M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 to the Russian estimates for the M1A1 and Leopard 2A4.

The point being that if the Russian estimates for the M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 are incorrect, then you can’t have much faith in their estimates for the M1A2 SEP.

1 Like

well it also depends on what m1a1 variant they were estimating for because the british estimates would be for the original and by the time this was written more armored variants were more common in service