“We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the Depleted Uranium material”
He’s talking about export armour packages because the U.S Gov refused to export DU armour for the Swedish tender.
This is correct. He stated there was no evidence stating improved hull armor from Sweden trials. They clearly wanted to get the non DU armor package closer in protection values in the DU armor or non-DU American abrams. I was simply replying to that statement.
Great post, it seems we were on the same page and I was working under the same details as you.
not sure about the US but here the EU false advertisement can get you fined for all youre worth
One how does that first sentence work
Two USA doesn’t give out the full info on its stuff and the media just say what they heard which could be wrong
The problem is that the design requirements do not relate to actual performance. In fact it often can exceed OR fall short of the requirements based upon other design tradeoffs. Furthermore, though you have budget documents you do not know the actual result of the changes in protection achieved. I can say, for a fact as I’ve seen the classified documents, you still don’t know what you are talking about. This is like saying a car brochure is an accurate representation of the vehicle itself. It is, but only in the very broadest of strokes.
The fact is, you have to admit you don’t know what you don’t know. IF you refuse to listen to the people that do know that is on you.
And I’m telling you. You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
It should be obvious. If the information that is relevant is classified. You cannot access the relevant information. The information that is used is a gross simplification of something and is missing many key pieces of information.
This is the point. It should be about fair gameplay. Not arbitrary standards of realism that don’t have access to real information.
Eh. Not really. The USA only gives accurate information. They just don’t share all of it. You can call it a lie by omission if you want. But I don’t even think that applies.
Eh. Since both of those nations are far older than the USA. Likely not true. And the absolute debacle in Ukraine for the Russian Army at the hands of outdated American equipment is all this historical proof you need that Russia and by default as they simply use modified Russian equipment, China is full of excrement.
By this standard you cannot believe anything. But that’s not how it works, is it?
We already discussed this well over a month ago and came to a decent understanding, I’m not sure why you’re reiterating things again.
I’ve already said that the only things we (and Gaijin) have to go off of is publicly available documentation, I’m merely presenting said documentation.
I don’t claim that this is air tight or entirely accurate to reality.
Nobody is asking for the use of classified information, the point is to fine enough justification to do something. You don’t know what the general layout of NGAP is, though you can estimate the effective armor increase, you know the exact weight, you can tell exactly where it was applied, in which variant, and so on.
This is hardly something protection can be based on.
I mean it’s enough to do “something” like you said. But it does not justify giving NATO tanks artificially inferior protection in game terms.
Well if the goal is fair gameplay, then after rework of NATO armor you’ll have to buff USSR MBTs, so they can be at least a little bit competitive. What would you suggest for a buff? And how to balance different NATO MBTs like Leopard vs Ariete for fair gameplay? We will artificially buff the weak tank or artificially nerf the strong tank?
Uh. Right now Russia has an unfair advantage in protection. I’m not talking about making NATO tanks better. I’m talking about making it even. Particularly in the case of the USA.
Well an Ariete is never going to be a Leopard. The answer for Italy lies in other vehicles. However, they could give the Ariete better ammunition and better armor (in the case of the hull it is pretty well established they are not giving the Ariete the armor the manufacturer says it has).
Well they are artificially nerfing strong tanks and buffing weak tanks already. The historical record is very clear on this. NATO tanks in game are artificially weakened in protection, ammunition performance and reload times. meanwhile Russian tanks are artificially strengthened in armor and post penetration resiliency.
That’s not even getting into the superior accuracy of NATO tanks or their superior post penetration survivability, neither of which are reflected in game.
I’m not saying to change ALL of this. I am mostly talking about their unwillingness to give DU armor to the hulls of Abrams, and other general changes to turret survivability. In game NATO tanks are bigger with larger “weak spots” In reality this is immaterial, but in game it is a major liability. I suppose if they made Russian tanks as inaccurate as they are in real life, and NATO tanks as accurate as they are in real life (in terms of gunnery) this could be balanced that way. But the unrealistic engagement ranges of tanks in this game won’t even help that much.
The bottom line is, Russian tanks are idiot easy to play and Abrams are far more challenging to play. This should be rectified.
Try “we will artifically nerf both tanks”, because that’s what actually happened, lol.
Poor USA. 3rd best top-tier mbt in game. And there 3 of them in tree. The most miserable nation in game. Even got reload buff before Merkava, Ariete, Challenger and Leclerc because the average USA top tier player is the lowest skilled and loudest at the same time)
And what vehicle would be the answer for the USSR?
The bottom line is, Sweden tanks are idiot easy to play and Merkava are far more challenging to play.
Corrected, don’t thank me. I recommend playing on USSR tanks first and enjoy exploding fuel tanks and non-tanking ammunition in 9/10 times. I didn’t like it. Everything except the bvm is below average.
That called fair gameplay. Weak become stronger, strong become weaker for the sake of balance. Enjoy.
There was already a reply from the developers about the 2a7 and t90m current state. Some bugs they can fix only in major patches. It’s not an artifically nerf of 2a7. It’s just a poorly and hastily done job. Incompetence is not an evil intent.
It has been based on it before? The Abrams in-game is based on the tests done on an EAP package, plus an estimated multiplier to put it on-par with HAP.
Does not justify [blah blah blah]?
In which they attempted to gaslight the playerbase that Leopard 2A7s armour is better than they modelled it… in the end it was quickly disproven that it is in fact, in a much worse state than they tried claiming.
It’s not an artifically nerf of 2a7.
Except a lot of them are. We’ve provided the devs with information (primary & secondary) that the protection should exceed that of the Strv 122 on Day 1 of the dev server, then comes the 2nd dev server and the armour values were nerfed to be less than Strv 122s - in fact less than Leopard 2 KVTs, which led to the Leopard 2 TVM max (i.e Strv 122). As of today, the 2A7V is in fact artifically nerfed in numerous ways.
It’s just a poorly and hastily done job. Incompetence is not an evil intent.
Yes, but incompetence is what LED the 2A7V to be modelled the way it is. I also never said the intent behind it was evil (although it certainly feels this way sometimes).
I am aware that Leopard 2A7V was a rushed job, almost everyone is aware of that, since Smin himself confirmed already back in September that Germany is set to receive a “more armoured” Leopard 2, and Smin never gives hints/leaks about upcoming AFVs. In fact it’s become my headcannon that Leopard 2A7V was never supposed to be released this early, as evident by its state during the First Dev Server, where it was entirely blue. It was almost definitely pushed forward to “appease” the German playerbase after the PSO fiasco of September 2k23 (it didn’t do that great of a job), personally I imagine that it was originally planned for the Summer update, or Fall update of 2024, giving both the developers & the person making the model time to polish it, correct any inaccuracies & gather sufficient information to give it proper armour values. However in the end it had fallen upon the playerbase itself to look up all the wrongs with the model of the vehicle, as well as to collect sources & data to create reports, well, it’s been a few weeks by now since most of the stuff was reported… lets see if the new major update changes anything.
The Swedes trials should not be included in any comment regarding American service tanks-
It was the export variant. The fact it uses different armor materials completely voids it source value. It’s totally different armor.
I designate you as the leader of the American WT spokes team.
Actually scratch that, you are now the president and with this title- you will represent all USA mains in the fight against our unjust and unequal treatment by the devs and some biased community members.
🫡🫡
