@Smin1080p sorry for bothering you, but could You please ask the devs for a more concise answer to this? Because we never get a source of why the 2A7V can’t get an armor upgrade even tho it clearly has been upgraded stated by the numerous ammount of archives and official book stating this and even so we don’t recieve a good answer for this and we would seriously want to know what is the thinking behind this and i’m concerned about the performance of such tanks, thank You in advance.
7 Likes
Most likely, the first tank to receive D-tech as main armor was the Leopard 2A5 (turret)
2 Likes
For context:
This appears to be 30 degree arc for either SVT or KVT tanks (B-technology base armour, TVMs only began trials in November of 1992 iirc)!
Important to note, the Leopard 2 TVM with C-technology armour achieved exactly 720mm RHAe KE within an arc on the left cheek & 810mm RHAe KE on the right cheek:
At the same time a version with B-technology achieved 758mm RHAe KE resistance over a 20 degree arc.
Currently no Leopard 2 in the game can match either the B-technology variant, nor the C-technology variant. Basically, Gaijin’s argument here is;
- they rely on Swedish Trials
- they don’t read them at all (duh)
- they make all Leopard 2s underperform compared to Swedish Trial variants
- they refuse secondary evidence based on “nu uh, we don’t believe, also we didn’t read anything you sent us”
There’s actually a term for such, Empty Headed Academic…
13 Likes
honestly as people have said you could give them all the info inculding classified and a 2A7V to check it on and nothing would change
thats the bullshit part Trial Data is used and it cant even meet that ingame so the armor is made up with believes
1 Like
Because that’s exactly what it is…
so can we now use the West German Test Data of the T-72M-1 for all 72s and 90s to make it fair
There really is not sufficient evidence for “internal” D tech armour.
Third generation armour can refer to C tech (third letter of alphabet and D tech is often referred to as fouth generation armour).
Ralph Zwilling is the only one that explicitly mentions it and when asked he basically didn’t have a source or used internet discussions.
Trying to chalk the armour improvements up to some internal armour change to D tech is damaging any credibility for armour bug reports.
If you want to have any hope of getting 2A5 etc fixed, I recommend purely sticking to the sources that talk about protection levels being the same between Strv 122 and 2A5 (obv with no hull add-on and turret roof add-on).
Using Swedish trials directly has been tried in the past and rejected, so I wouldn’t exactly hold my breath.
1 Like
For older Leopard 2s I can believe that D-tech was not implemented as main armour, but for the newest ones like the 2A7V, I do think it could have appeared.
It may not be D-technology, in some of the books the wedges are described as such, and that they’re similar to “4th generation spaced composite armour” (which is likely what got people to assume that D-technology equeals internal armour, but it may a completely different thing that’s only loosely connected to D-technology).
We know that the internal armour saw an upgrade on the 2A7V, but we don’t 100% know what kind of armour it exactly is.
3 Likes
But there is no real proof it exists (as internal armour), nor reason for it to exist, let alone be implemented.
The only references to it are outdated British documents from before KVT was even mocked up and a few vague sentences that can be interpreted in several ways.
All of the sources put heavy emphasis on the add-on modules instead and the need to cut costs by mixing hulls and turret batches, dropping the add-on armour and more.
2A7V meanwhile seems to use KMW developed add-ons (hull roof which is new and from PSO) and some new armour insert which has yet to be named.
To bring the hull up to the level of the turret, a new internal armour would need to have been developed, because the hull has a lower thickness to begin with, only the weakened zones of the mantlet and turret sides are similar enough to the hull.
It also doesn’t make a ton of sense to use a light hull roof add-on such as developed for PSO and claim that hull protection levels are equal to the turret.
Saying the internal armour change is to D tech is pure speculation that doesn’t seem very likely, especially considering the age of that armour design and the recent move away from IBD/ RPS.
1 Like
Gaijin back at it again nerfing western tech to match their beliefs of russian technological superiority:
4 Likes
Hello
Unfortunately the developer answer has already been posted and shared all the information that I too would be able to share.
There is unfortunately insufficient evidence of direct values in the report on the hull from which to make any changes. None of the sources provide specific protection values of which to change the current array too.
2 Likes
We’re just going to ignore how the current armour values only match a Leopard 2 Improved with B-technology armour and D-2 add-on armour?
Knowing that the Leopard 2A7Vs hull armour is C-technology currently in the game, and how the add-on armour Germany uses/used was identical to Strv 122s?
Currently the add-on armour is artifically nerfed to levels never seen before, best part is how the turret add-on armour & composite armour are also identical, but for some reason Strv 122s turret armour is better?
At the very least they should make the armour completely identical to Strv 122s (C-technology + add-on), and not to a 1992/1993 prototype that never entered service in Germany.
Not mentioning how the upper plate is basically worse than on the Leopard 2A6 currently.
Or how the turret armour can’t match B-tech + D-2 levels at all on any Leopard 2 in the game?
Or how the devs straight up lie by saying the hull currently matches turret’s protection levels in the 20 degree arc, but when we check out the same Swedish Trials that they treat like a Holy Bible, we can actually see they protection level should be around ~750mm RHAe KE at the very least (Shot No.1 GER 930687)?
But preferably 720mm in a 30 degree arc on the left side of the turret & 810mm on the right side because that’s what a vehicle with C-techonolgy + add-on was capable of providing.
The devs can’t even model the existing protection properly for the worst possible configuration, and yet they expect us to pull out precise values for the latest Leopard 2 version out of nowhere? xD
We’ve provided secondary evidence of how the requirement for the 2A7V was for the hull to provide equeal protection to the turret; at this point it’s just 1 + 1:
- take a look at the turret protection (after modelling that properly)
- copy paste that onto the hull
Boom, the vehicle is now properly modelled. Real rocket science stuff innit.
22 Likes
The issue is that, as @FurinaBestArchon has posted, even gaijins own source material on the matter (the swedish trials), which discuss a tank with a KNOWN inferior armor configuration to the 2A7V, shows the 2A7V is underperforming.
The devs arent exactly gaining any fans by trying to tell us that theyre following the swedish trials data, then lying about the protection in the swedish trials…
YOU know we cant get “exact values” for the protection of germany’s latest production MBT, the DEVS know it too, and we know it. That would be classified info. You are literally telling us “nothing we can do to fix it even though not only is it underperforming based on available data of PREVIOUS models of the tank, but we all know its completely illogical(words the devs themselves used) for it to have lower protection than a much older variant (STRV122), unless you provide us with classified information” nudge nudge wink wink
“Oh, but totally dont provide us with classified info” nudge nudge wink wink
Same thing as the issue with the 2A7V’s transmission. We KNOW its top speed was reduced to enhance its acceleration to MATCH those of the 2A4, but the devs REFUSE to fix the transmission because we “need to provide the exact gear ratios”. What kind of moronic, BLATANTLY excessive demand is that?
If they dont want to fix it because its performing too well, thats one thing, they could just tell us to hold on until a later date at which the values will be revisited. But instead they try to gaslight us into believing 758=650, 2+2=blue, and that logic should not be followed when making assumptions and are suprised when they get anger as a reply???
13 Likes
sounds like challengers era type scenario
We all know the values even for Strv 122 are wrong (wrong protection on the side!), never mind that the devs literally said earlier that the 2A7V ISN’T based on B + D-2 armour, yet those are the exact values they state in their spreadsheet!
We’d also like to separately note that some players believe that the protection of the Leopard 2A7V presented in the game is based on the “B” package. However, according to the data we have, this is not the case. As you can see from the armor resistance diagrams from the Swedish tender, the mounted package D-2 in combination with package B provides protection of only 45% of the frontal projection from APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm, but in the game a different combination of armor protection packages is presented, providing protection of more than 65% of the frontal projection from threats of this type.
So, they contradict their own statements and even the protection they say the tank achieves, it doesn’t!
We have the data and the proof needed to at the very least improve the hull protection of the Strv 122s AND 2A7V to the values from the Swedish trials, yet the devs don’t even do this.
6 Likes
My response was regarding the questioned report above and the data within that. If you wish to make a new report on the Strv 122s protection or the Leopard 2A7 with your evidence, we can indeed forward that for consideration.
We did. I provided evidence that they should be at least equeal (before that I made reports about how the armour on all Leopard 2A5+ variants is still underperforming compared to the Leopard 2 TVM) in TrickZZter’s DM’s - which he claimed to have forwarded, not long after the report was closed down on the basis of “we don’t see a reason to improve the protection”.
Reports in question:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/JoVCTLEehFPa
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/opfQA5TSBvtF
I’ll maybeee do a few more that go more into detail later on… but at this point I question whether it’s worth it when we get with with “nu uh” in return.
8 Likes
Thats the problem Smin, we dont want to make any reports anymore, because the devs literally lie to our face as a reply and we have no other recourse to resolve this
Its not easy getting all these sources and piecing together all the info to provide the most accurate report we can, it takes considerable time and effort, only for the devs to lie straight to our faces as a response?
5 Likes