hmmm
This is insane. Another major update dev server and China and Italy still don’t get spall liners for their top tier tanks. Does Gaijin just completely forget about existing vehicles in minor nations?
5 Likes
It was the first thing I checked for when I opened the dev server.
Safe to say - I’ve already gotten used to the disappointment…
5 Likes
Hmmm.
I wonder why you ignored the first two replies, one from me - and another from a technical moderator disproving this claim?
The very image used in that report shows the Abrams interior being completely liner-less. So at this point I can only chalk it up to delirium.
Regardless… To get back on topic.
After opening the dev server yesterday, this is what I’ve seen:
- Chinese tanks have had their autoloader modeled (a general nerf)
- No spall liner has been added on any of the ~9-10 Chinese tanks missing spall liners
A very sad reality. At least one hidden buff was that the PGZ09 finally got its AHEAD rounds, and they’re programmable via IRST - so it is now a fair bit more effective against aircraft.
6 Likes
Curious that the report got approved then and similar reports are being not shot down.
1 Like
Most likely because there have been orchestrated forum raids from redditors and mass push from completely uneducated Youtubers goading people on even further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIej1C49XsE
There have been many videos like this one.
Any acknowledgement is obviously done to quell your rage.
Most American mains don’t even realize that DU has been modeled on the Abrams for years, and they still pedal the “more weight for no armor” thing in utter ignorance (to mass upvotes and positive support), and it’s a daily occurrence on the forums still. It is obvious that Gaijin is trying their very hardest to try to calm you down.
Unlike China, where acknowledged reports were all met with actual concrete evidence and imagery that everyone can see.
2 Likes
- Community making well made and cited reports is just brigading.
Sure my guy that sounds like some grade A cope.
[DEV]China’s MBT autoloader is easily damaged by fragments // Gaijin.net // Issues
When the APFSDS projectile penetrates the rear part of the turret, the small fragments will damage the autoloader. As a metal machine, the autoloader should not be so fragile.
China has some very high quality bug reporters for sure.
it isnt like all bug reports from every nation are actually well made.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2ee8tsnveJqN
on the other hand there are well made bug reports from Chinese vehicles
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u1eWnPupv39Y
btw unlike on the Abrams he shows clear evidence of the spall liners.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fE4J43ltEOJV
here on one “source” they claim that the interior is covered by Kevlar and on the next one the Kevlar is used as backing for the ceramic not in the interior, not to mention that not a single image of those Kevlar on the inside has been found.
3 Likes
I don’t know why you word it as a quote of something that I said, when it isn’t.
That’s called a strawman because you represented something I said in your own words to make it sound worse.
Despite it being absolutely true. Just because there’s a large “community” behind it - it doesn’t make it correct.
There’s a large flat earth community, and they’re fairly outspoken.
There can be thousands of you repeating the same mantra, but I only believe in the objective truth.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Yes, well - you seem to believe me saying that the reports are not well made, are poorly cited, and are mostly backed by peer pressure (all objective truths) is me saying that they are “well made and cited reports”.
I don’t understand what’s so difficult about:
(Implying that they are well made and cited, and that I’m falsely equating them to brigading)
Between:
(Them being made out of very clear ignorance - such as what you’ve shown within this thread, and mostly being entirely based on being as loud as possible to force your way)
Very different implications. And hence, a strawman.
Hope this helps.
2 Likes
I dont believe you read my actual post’s highlights properly but c’est la vie.
You are aware that this post highlights the fact that are misconstruing those entire threads, please find me one M1 series tank in game that has DU hull armor, you wont find one, Necrons made very much so sure of that by providing gaijin documentation on the matter years ago.
The “More weight for no armor” is true, the M1A2 and the M1A2 SEP V2 in game have different armor arrays, separated by more than 20 years of development, but their non applique armor arrays are identical in game, yet, the SEP V2 is a full ton an a half heavier than the base M1A2 without it’s applique.
I would implore you to go and re-read the armor discussions on the M1 series, I would think you may find them enlightening when you take the time to go through them.
1 Like
It’s sad how neglected top tier China is, most of the tanks have inadequate survivability topped with the worst reload and subpar gun handling. Hundreds of reports have been made as well as acknowledged for what needs to be fixed, but all they have done was an ERA fix which is a negligible change due to the amount of problems that persist. Seeing China in this state makes it unenjoyable to play top tier against other nations that have incredible survivability and are just better in every way like if I’m being uptiered. At the end of the day, it is not only China who suffers so I hope everyone sees the change they are looking for.
5 Likes
I agree. I think Italy also got shafted quite badly.
Considering the WAR kit is 5.5 tons of armor built to combat kinetic threats, yet is only ~20mm effective in-game despite basic extrapolation (and accounting for it being at least as effective as RHA for the same weight - which should be a basic standard for any composite, including composite armors built for chemical rounds) and math showing that it should be at least ~160mm effective against KE on the turret, which when added to the 400mm cheeks would be enough to stop multiple top tier shells, it’s quite sad.
I feel like China’s got it the worst, though. There’s so many flaws, and there’s similarly so many vehicles missing.
The spall liner debacle is the worst one in my eyes because they didn’t even MENTION China in their spall liner concerns blog: [Development] Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft - News - War Thunder
They only talked about the LeClerc, Ariete and Merkava. Chinese tanks WEREN’T EVEN MENTIONED. And for the Ariete - they said it will get them soon, but here’s two updates later, and still nothing.
While China, the nation with THE MOST VEHICLES missing spall liners - wasn’t even on their minds.
Not even acknowledgement. That really hurt.
6 Likes
Wasn’t aware of this post but it goes to show which nation is at the bottom of the priority list, appreciate the info.
5 Likes
except the Abrams really doesn’t have a spall liner
3 Likes
Oh hey look the irrelevant additional spall liner addition request that would have put additional liners on top of the existing spall lined armor.
Love it when people keep brining up old disproven / unrelated information.
The Abrams has anti spall lining coatings. The armor is classified but generally known to be steel outer skin, ceramic honeycomb to absorb HEAT and chemical warheads, and depleted uranium plates, then internal steel skin with spall lining coatings.
2 Likes
I know that the Chinese tanks get spall liner but how will they get it? will it be fully across hull sides and turret sides like T-90m?
1 Like
