The PR team is not very professional, since they keep lying to us like ^ here instead of just admitting their actual reasons. But everyone else generally is professional as far as I can tell, and we were discussing the game designers and product manager in this instance (people deciding on nerfing NATO tanks) not PR people trying to mislead us about it.
I’ve seen some Devs in the F15 thread that were being quite cool so I won’t say they’re all like that
But I need to remind you that we are currently talking to each other in a thread where they just this morning told US players to go f*ck themselves
If nerfing NATO tanks and buffing Russian tanks is most profitable, then merely approving all your requests and tickets that undo that would be a personal NATO bias, since it would be reducing revenue just for emotional/patriotic reasons.
I think they should actually NOT improve the armor on the Abrams, probably. But not because it isn’t historical, it is. Rather, because it (and the other tickets it sets a precedent for) would cause Russia to not have a top tier, and the game would do less well/a lot of players would be unfairly left out of top tier. Then they need to SAY THAT (or whatever else their real reason is) not lie about it.
This is literally the thread about the Abrams hull armor.
1 Like
This picture is from 2009. What do you even want anymore. Am I gonna get to see these documents or nah?
Can you guys not spam this thread with off topic issues?
1 Like
This thread is the dev blog on Abrams hull armor. Read the title.
Tada!
Go to the answers from the devs thread.
1 Like
They’ve been using their homegrown 3rd generation PNM-T (Sosna-U) sight for some quite time, but on their most recent modifications of the T-72 and T-80 they have reverted to uncooled 2nd generation thermals
Unfortunately, knowing gaijin this thread will die, together with any hopes of Abrams being relevant in the game
Sadly that is the likely scenario. At the very least I hoped we’d go kicking and screaming but it looks like it’ll be silent with no fight lol
1 Like
Against HEAT, composite armor tends to be quite chunky. But against KE, you can have two armor pieces of different size but similar performance if the smaller armor piece has a higher density. That’s a rule of thumb, of course. Every piece of armor has to be examined on a per case basis.
I mean, even if expected, there were 2 huge bad news bombs dropped in quick order. So imo it’s understandable that people need a bit of time to come up with what to do.
Just randomly screaming and yelling against Gaijin isn’t really of any use either.
I dont even care about m1 hull protection but it is so funny to see how Gaijin standarts work.
Sometimes they ignore the “sicrit documints” and proofs, but in some cases they buff/nerf the vechicle out of thin air. Truly gaijin moment.
3 Likes
That was a response to someone about M829A2 and A3 for the Abrams bc gaijin didnt want to add a3 and the effectiveness in game bc thry refuse to give the abrams its uparmoring.
Kind of took my reply out of context. Even if my reply itself doesnt mention M1 Abrams
Are you really arguing the existence and service use of the Kiowa? Lmao, found another clown 🤡
Hah! This would make it on par with how the BVM functions in game so not gonna happen!
@Stona_WT how you ended up saying Abrams has DU in turret face when M1A2, M1A1 HC and onwards has turret protection modelled after M1A2 sent to Sweden to trials, with armour that was stated to be non-DU export variant because US Government disapproved export DU to other countries. Pretty much made up just for this trials? There are several proofs that states this armour package was inferior to production M1A2 that US Army has in that time. Your logic is off, you pulled out gaijined reasons to not make Abrams a little bit better.
23 Likes