Marketing material and PR/used care salesman speak doesn’t really make for reliable solid evidence. Statements made without proper context or qualification are difficult to trust.
They don’t know better, but the manufacturers are being cagey. If manuals were declassified, we might have more information, but currently it’s just PR speak making contextless unqualified statements.
Ok then can someone explain where that weight is spent then ?
There is literally no point of grinding SEPv2 since you can`t remove useless TUSK , and this is an actual downgrade from M1A2 and M1A2SEP (with removed TUSK)
Hilarious XD good try, next time open your eyes when you read a bug report containing source material
You’re following flawed and speculative logic and you know it.
Gaijins logic isn’t the final say in realistic implementation. They are a biased source. They are human and will make mistakes. All the behind the scenes stuff could be completely wrong and you blindly follow it instead of actual documents.
This is appreciated.
Your sources are helpful in alleviating stress I’ve had over its low hull armor.
It makes sense that within the current ruleset that these sources are strong.
I cannot blame the company making this game as that would be childish, it would be me having a tantrum for no reason.
You guys may have made the rules, but it’s the fault of lack of documentation which isn’t in your control as a company.
@papszi99
Calm down, sir Russia fan, Type 99, Strv 122s & 2A7V aren’t Russian tanks.
T-90M has identical armor to Strv 122B and is the Soviet tech tree’s most armored tank.
As seen in the chart, M1 in-game has significantly less armor than M1A1 & IPM1 which have significantly less armor than M1A1 HC[DU], and M1A2s.
Now, whether the turret armor can be most of that 2.3 and 2.5 ton increases over time I personally don’t know.
No, this is not a stance.
They very much state that they’re reliant on sources.
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.
No, they’re telling you that player-formed estimates don’t work in the current rules.
Which is why I provided feedback that opposes the current armor rules in:
The link to the feedback itself:
https://poll.gaijin.net/survey/110/
Why am I not surprised their promised post covering the Abrams’ proper armor is just Gaijin saying “Nuh uh” while huffing copium and gaslighting the player base?
remember, documents are acceptable only if they nerf western vehicles and buff russian ones
Are you some kind of undercover Gajin agent?
That’d be a forum rules violation.
The fact you’re implying all critics of War Thunder are employees is honestly sad.
Gaijin doesn’t need your protection.
Refer to this.
Since gaijin is constantly pounding the need adequate sources drum what exactly are their sources that the US was incapable of upgrading said suspension to compensate for the forward shift of the center of gravity?
I would just really need to know why it is not possible to remove useless TUSK from SEPv2 , so we can actaually get a sidegrade instead of downgrade of a tank ?
Everybody had a friend who reminded the teacher that they had homework, now that child is you!
This
“These changes could rather have been aimed at increasing the armor filler’s survivability upon impact”
impact from what M111? This is extremely poor reasoning what on earth would be to reason to optimise your composite for multi hit survivability when it can barely withstand even a single hit from according to your estimations of the Abrams’ hull completely obsolescent 105mm ammunition?
You’d have to be a complete idiot to think that was a reasonable upgrade path to go down, that is possible as stupidity abounds but it’s charitably highly unlikely.
Real. Britain isn’t even on this list.
Britain is the chain holding the skeleton down.
Even though 2a7 is not in its irl shape its still good I think. Gen 3 thermals dm53 impenetrable cheeks part of the hull protected
