Gaijin and modern NATO armor

As somebody who worked in the Abrams program I can confirm that all of the documentation shown by Gaijin presents a limited understanding of modern NATO tank armor and is arbitrarily pernicious to NATO tanks and pro Russia and China.

Fact 1. Russia and China publicly lie about their stuff.
Fact 2. NATO has much better information security.
Fact 3. Gaijin has no idea how modern composite laminate armor works. At least in the documents they have provided.
Fact 4. The Demarre formula gives rounds obviously unrealistic performance.

I could go on. The point is all top tier tanks are fake. Obviously fake. Holding to a “standard” that creates fake tanks is pointless in the face of fair gameplay.

Yes I know what I am talking about.

Just because NATO provides less information than Russian and Chinese Propagandists you don’t have to treat NATO artificially worse.


america does too but thats besides the point.
honestly ive given up hope that gaijin will acknowlegde the bug reports for the leclerc or the abrams or the leo. its sad rn.


I mean the companies lie, that’s fair. More to say they exaggerate. Still, it’s a rabbit hole we don’t need to go down. The bottom line. The MOST important point. Is that Gaijin doesn’t know what they don’t know. And that is leading to unfair gameplay for no reason other than hubris.


At this stage I’m just laughing, because frankly I don’t know what else to do.


Not to mention our allies abroad that we have codeveloped systems and armor packages with. I’m sure there are some CR2 crewmen that are displeased with the lack of armor on their hulls, but they have even less information than the US does.


yeah sure, cause NATO never would lie about stuff, ever found an honest salesmen?


let’s just accept the fact that gajooble takes any ru source for 100% accurate (ka50/52 icrm?)
But if it is about a nato vehicle its wrong :D
meanwhile nato source get the usual L
best example leopard pso leopard 2a7v (taking 20 year old swedish trails to make the armor lol)
or abrams still not having proper hull armor…
Clearly all nato countrys upgrade only turrets and keep the hull from the original design and don’t improve it /s

  • still no anti era on rounds like dm53 L27a1 just because ru tanks would be back to death traps compared to what they are now :)

Strv 122A & B have the strongest armor in War Thunder.
They aren’t Chinese nor Russian.
2A7V has armor in-between T-90M and T-80BVM, it’s not Russian.

If we have issues with armor protection among top tanks we do the following:
1- Find source material within the ruleset.
2- Make an official suggestion to change the ruleset.
3- Provide feedback that the current armor ruleset is not satisfactory.

Go to the feedback form link on this page & tell them you oppose the current armor rules of top MBTs & would prefer more parity instead, as part of your feedback. You can only send feedback once so it’s best to prepare your feedback in a LibreOffice/Word document.


This is the problem. The Ruleset is arbitrary and not a reflection of what reality is.

All of the top tier tanks are fake anyway. Anybody who works in tank development knows this. Therefore you are arguing for real documents, that don’t exist because of NATO classification procedures, to affect tanks that are imaginary.

It’s silly.


The ruleset is there for equality of the tech trees.
However, it’s clear people don’t want equality, people want parity AKA equality of outcome.

Conte, My friend. We have discussed this. Yes they have no clue what the armor of modern MBTs is like. But we know and anyone who does some slight research can find that from the M1A1 HA and onward DU is used in the turret and hull of the Abrams. Now yes we can only assume that the thickness of the armor has stayed the same as that information is not public, But the DU would create a more dense armor package leading to better protection of the Abrams hull. Im going to once again share photos of the Swedish testing for the M1A2 Leo 2A5 and Leclerc.

These Photos Can Be Found Online


When you have more documents for one nation, like Russia. And fewer documents for other nations. Like the USA. It is inherently unequal.

Your statement lacks merit.


They have more documents for USA, those documents don’t give them the information they want tho.
& no one could know what countries gave what information back when the rules were formed well over 5 years ago.

1 Like

Well since I know what’s classified about an Abrams and what is not. And since I know what is FOUO and what is not. I do, in fact, know that the information they have for the Abrams is sketchy and not an accurate representation of the true capabilities of the tank. The Dunning-Krueger is strong here.


They have yet to prove what information they have to the player base. the “Why we believe the hull armor has not been improved” Should make you understand they have no documents regarding the Abrams.


I have documents they can’t use on a variety of systems, and they can’t use any information from those documents even if they themselves acquired them.
They as a company must abide by the laws of all countries they operate in, and outside of changing the rules to provide more parity among armor at top MBTs there’s little they can do.
Strv 122, 2A7V, T-series tanks, and Type 99 have more open documents about them.


no one care about that right now what people care is thing need to get fix to get thing right not arguing who has strongest armor


Budy, I agree and disagree with you at the same time
You 're probably right on most of your claims, I would not say one side lies more or less that the other but afaik, high tier protection data is usually secret anyways and I do believe RUS armor is not as bad as bad doctrine and lack of support makes it out to be.

Also there is the thing where you cannot simulate the cost difference between tanks on both sides. Would you like for Nato armor be modeled “fairly” and then have 16:25 fights in the matchmaker?
Would this be better or worse than now?

On the end we must accept this is a game only loosely based on reality. Loosely is the key word. Between the balance and fair representation of real stuff I would pick the balance every time.

I’m always puzzled between fanboys of any nation, I play them all and I do pretty much equally good or bad in whichever tank because map knowledge, chance, reflexes, eyesight, nerves play much higher role that armor spalling. We are human beings and have this inherent bias, we do notice when our grenade bounces wildly but when it happens to the enemy we take it for granted. If the other side is really that unjustly OP, playing them should be a walk in the park and you should do much better …right? ; )


Which is why I’m supplying this statement to many people:

If we have issues with armor protection among top tanks we do the following:
1- Find source material within the ruleset.
2- Make an official suggestion to change the ruleset.
3- Provide feedback that the current armor ruleset is not satisfactory.

I’ve done 1 & 3.
1 Like

I agree with this. It’s why loading times on NATO 4 man tanks is artificially low. It’s also why Russian stuff is so good in the game. The problem is that it is NOT equal at top tier. Russian tanks get huge advantages over NATO tanks. It should be more balanced. An equal playing field. And the fact that it is unequal is all just made up by Gaijin.