well, you see, that’s where you’re wrong
1 Like
The ruleset quite literally says to find documentation that supplements a claim, and find multiple. This isn’t arbitrary, it’s one of the soundest systems.
You sure love to parrot this over and over, don’t you?
Real documents absolutely do exist. You can find some up to the 2010s with FOIA alone.
Unless you mean to say all declassified or shared documents aren’t “real”, which would be hypocritical to your point that NATO never lies.
1 Like
Doubling down on what? 50% of these issues given have been ended in “will be fixed by ______+”.
Hell, even the primary points list bug reports that were acknowledged.
So… What’s the issue? There’s classified data. Simple as.
1 Like
How did they get the ERA type wrong? TrickZZter himself said that “‘Public data’ is not enough to prove that it’s an Armor Shield R”.
They openly stated that there is disbelief to the fact that it is Armor Shield R, as well as went off of the information they previously had on the Challenger’s ERA.
What does that make them? Right.
They didn’t get anything wrong about it. They perfectly debunked the bug report, stating that Armor Shield R has no substantiation of use on the Challenger, while continuing to hold correct figures for the ERA being used.
1 Like
Well first off, it is true.
Second off, please show me the document that describes that provides the actual testing data for how the armor works and what it works against?
Third off, please show me the document that gives the composition of the composite armor on the Abrams tank
You can’t.
Ergo. The documents they need, don’t exist in the public forum
I cannot stop you from feeling like you know the answers to these questions. I also cannot provide specific information, because it’s classified. All I can say is you are wrong. And if you don’t take my word for it, then there is nobody who can tell you you are wrong that you will believe. Why, because it’s all classified.
5 Likes
The said that it was noted to be equipped on it, as everybody and their mothers were crying about how the Challenger had it. There are multiple bug reports where it was dismissed as non-concrete info on its application on the Challenger.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gasYUQ4gGUaT
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HlsIzra35I75
They even say that Armor Shield R is the only ERA Rafael produces^
And finally, correct information
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yAwckdJcmHwD
1 Like
Why does that matter? The ERA in game doesn’t offer level 5 protection unless you factor in the plate behind it, which GJN is insisting must be the case for no reason with no evidence.
1 Like
I’m sure it is.
What armor? We’re talking about rulesets, do you need to take your meds before having a discussion?
Again, what does this have to do with the topic? It’s been shown various times the thread “Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams”, as well as “Does the Abrams have a spall liner? No from what I could find”.
Though if you’re this desperate to bring out-of-topic things into this, you shouldn’t be that unwilling to look, right?
Why would I? This is a topic about source substantiation, your goalposts have no sway on me.
They’ve given a plentiful amount of documentation, even having it be cited in an acknowledgement post. It isn’t a lack of documentation, it’s the fact that public information directly stated multiple times that it does not have specific attributes that everybody is so unbelievably hard-stuck on.
I’m not saying I know the answers to these questions? I’m simply stating that the process of citing a claim is perfectly fine how it is, and has been used countless times to perfect vehicles in-game.
I’m sure you can’t. Even then, who asked?
1 Like
I’m sorry but I’ve completely missed your point here
The first report states the Addon shouldn’t be ROMOR but should be Armor Shield R. Second one says it should also be Shield R.
So your point is our best information 9+ months ago… is… ehhh?
The armour we should have is ASPRO-HMT according to the best info we have (at least from what i’ve seen on the Chally 2 Thread)
My original comment was about how Gaijin got the name wrong or the protection values wrong on the NERA elements
If they meant to reference ASPRO-HMT then it’s a simple case of someone didn’t get the memo and put the wrong name in
If Gaijin did mean to reference Armor Shield R, which I suppose you could probably fit to the Challenger 2 TES, then the armour figures would need changing.
Either of those is fine but some clarification is needed.
Regardless of what was actually intended, i don’t actually understand the point of your comment.
I’m not arguing as to whether or not it has its proper protection, I’m arguing on the basis of its very disputable classification and grounds for reserach.
What do you mean “no real evidence”? The ERA kit on the Challenger 2 is stated to have level 5 protection, simple as. ASPRO-HMT happens to have level 5 protection, does it not?
And also has claims of its effective protection, and armor level.
1 Like
That’s the primary topic of the report, yes, though what I meant to do is focus on the conclusion reached.
It isn’t the best information out there by all means, it’s the 2nd link I get when I search through /issues.
Yes, that’s my point. The very first link I gave (and the topic of your first two lines) reached the conclusion that Armor Shield R has no documentation of use on the Challenger, and if you look at my response to SlowHandClap, there’s substantial evidence of use of ASPRO-HMT on the Challenger.
ASPRO-HMT, being level 5.
If that was your intent with your message, then I didn’t see that at first. I’m not here to argue the effectiveness of the armor, only the concrete information of its armor package.
Tweaking armor values to match level 5 armor is something that can be dealt with easily, as long as it has priority. Info on that is already laid out clearly. The issue I see is actually knowing which package it has, which tons of people seem to see with heavy contention.
It seems like another vague statement on an issue they don’t want to stir. People have been arguing for the past 2 years about which [N]ERA protection the Challenger has all around, and this topic is one of those that people cannot settle on.
1 Like
it says it has NERA on it
Gotcha, fine. My understanding is that for the time being the Chally Thread agrees it is in fact ASPRO-HMT, through the use of visual aids and some academic/book sources.
That said, Gaijin seems to think the ~40mm “Aluminium” plate behind it has to be there to achieve that value/standard of protection, which seems illogical given the various other platforms using ASPRO-HMT don’t necessarily have that backing plate.
It’s also disputed on whether that plate is even Aluminium, but that’s a separate issue.
1 Like
Yes?
and maybe ERA the rafel stuff is era
So you’re saying you dispute STANAG classifications?
You need to work on your comprehension. I said that currently the ERA in game does not provide level 5 protection, unless you also factor in the plate it is on. That is underperforming, because the ERA on it’s own should be stopping a 25mm apfsds @ 30 degrees, and it doesn’t.
1 Like
No? Where did you get that?
I’m saying that it is level 5. Simple as.
And I’ve said multiple times that I’m not here to dispute the protection of the package. Can you not read?
If it’s that much of an issue to you, open a complaint. Nobody has reported on the protection of the Challenger’s kit.
What
4 Likes
Nobody has gone to /issues with a claim that ASPRO-HMT is not given the protection it should have.
“it’s one of the soundest systems.”
lololol