Ayeflyingcowboy clamed that SEPv2 entered service in 2018 when it was in 2020. He clamed that the sources did not mean anything, so now we are going through the integration process.
Officially entering service is not the same as manufacturing start, you have to build them before they can start service, thats how US service dates work
1 Like
The service date are set by the fielding date. The fielding date for the m1a2c was 2020.
Problem with vehicles like these is that they will be stuck with shitty gen1 thermals again, making them infinitely worse again than things like rhe 2A7V imo in terms of in game.
2 Likes
where the hell did you get your sources? there has only been ONE confirmed challenger 2 kill
1 Like
Didn’t you keep up with the latest RU figures? They’ve taken out 83 Challengers by now. Along with 349 HIMARS, 300 Abrams and -checks notes- all of the evil Westoid Bio Labs that were developing genetically engineered migratory birds.
Seriously, by this point Challenger 2 is like the bogeyman - every knocked out tank MUST be an evil Anglo-Saxon Challenger. Call it a mix of the British living rent-free inside the Russian consciousness. Multiply that with the latters inferiority complex and you get comedy gold.
Muhahahahaha (Laughs in British)
8 Likes
I knew it was those sneaky Anglo-Saxons. I’ve heard that the USA is actually the Anglo-Saxon USA.
3 Likes
This book is an encyclopedia Modern Tanks and AFVs: 1991-Present (Technical Guides), lots of errors, Very poor book.
My bad, “only 3”, after the third one, the batalion that got in hand with this proced not to use in anymore and Leo 2 got pushed to the frontline instead of Chally 2.
- September 5 2023
- September 6 2023
- September 10 2023
No “official” media from Russian figured those numbers.
Before these Western tanks deployed for the counter offensive, every russian tanks is bad and no Western tanks can be destroyed.
After the destructions of these, now “every tanks” can be destroyed.
Just an idea, General Dynamics has a Twitter, somebody tag them in a post with a link to this and ask them if they have any input. Then make a post on here with a link to the Twitter post and everybody can spam like/repost it. Gaijin wants primary sources. Let’s get a primary source. @GD_LandSystems is their Twitter account. Tag Gaijin also @GaijinEnt and @WarThunder.
7 Likes
Polish edition is much better, it was edited by known polish specialist. Editor changed information about almost every tank in this book.
1 Like
8 Likes
I have this book in Polish and it still has a lot of errors and is a poor source of information.
Oh the one hand, I would not expect GD to bother with this…
ON THE OTHER HAND, I would actually somewhat expect GD to make at least a superficial statement!
After all, the Abrams tank is one of their main products, and War Thunder has become a big piece of media.
The poor depiction of the Abrams tank in War Thunder could be considered to be negative marketing.
Therefore, if I were GD, I would bother to at least release a statement on the lines of “our product is being depicted in an unrealistically negative light in regards to its armor protection” at very least, and maybe even an indication as to whether it should be improved or not and to which degree.
2 Likes
And then official Gaijin statement that GD announcement can’t be taken as primary source with post scriptum saying " They didn’t bother to give us exact values of Sep/Sepv2 armour so we can assume it still has protection from 1990s" xdxd
21 Likes
And if GD gave numbers: “since they are the manufacturers, those numbers are likely exaggerated propaganda xdxdxd”
19 Likes
Topped off with…
‘We BELIEVE and ASSUME that the armour is identical to an M4 Sherman - since they APPEAR to be similar (tracks, turret, gun).’
11 Likes
Yeah no, I think I’ll prefer to insult the insulter when it warrants it. Attempting to assuage yourself of your behavior by saying ‘he was disrespectful first’ when you were the original problem is your own fault.
Furthermore, your claims have been faulty in several areas.
Either apologize, man up, and be constructive, or leave the conversation. Choice is yours, I’m going to mute you if you keep it up.
Far as I’ve been made aware, Gaijin’s damage models are allowing for overspalling with HEAT rounds in the M1 series Abrams, and these need to be addressed. Not only that, but considering that volumetric armor is not likely to show anytime soon in the mix, we’ll need to approach this with a different angle. The only angle I can come up with is reintroducing the concept of APFSDS-T and APFSDS shattering at extreme angles, like they had in the Dev Server, and program it so that various metals shatter and behave differently according to their known characteristics.
Also, flak vests, which are already programmable into the system.
Finally, fix the hull armor, because it didn’t stay at the same rate even if it lacked depleted uranium in the first place.
The estimates they’ve given are quite clearly low, and they need to fix the turret ring.
15 Likes
Yes ! XD “They gave us inflated numbers 100% and our experts think, the same as manpads case, it cannot be that good with this correlation of mass, volume and materials because T-90M still use hull from 1990s so Abrams too, so we will just address it’s reload once again and gave it spare loader that ride on this chair on top of Click-Bait xdxdxdxdxdxd”
4 Likes