and yes that was made with Chat GTP as i am shit with formulating text even more so in an language that is not my own but this holds the information i want to relate in a well formulated text wich i would not be capable in writing
Hello
Thanks for your feedback and comments. We very much do appreciate the efforts put in by reporters and wherever possible, always try to provide our reasonings and explanations as far as it is possible to do so in detail, such as most recently:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/answering-your-concerns-regarding-spall-liners-mbts-and-aircraft
As mentioned, we planned to continue these types of responses with the next one being on the Challenger 2 and addressing the reports and feedback within.
Beyond this, we always endeavour to answer all reports that are taken into consideration as far as it is possible to do so.
These reports have already been responded too. So unfortunately there is no new answer I can provide here.
That’s the problem Smin! They’ve been responded to in such a manner that it pissed off pretty much every Leopard 2 player on this forum.
The developers lied and gaslighted there, they tried telling us that somehow the vehicles provides X amount of protection across a certain arc, people go about checking it out and found that to be a lie, it was then reported (by me), and that was hit with a 4 liner that nevermind explaining why they denied it, they straight up went “no”.
16 Likes
I’m sorry but at this point i’m more then sure that the devs regarding german tanks act like this
I mean they say they took the swedish trails as refence in 1 sentence
but somehow manage to screw up so much that the leopard2a7v has less armor then a 30 year old test version
Wow flagged for what ?
You got to be kidding lmao
14 Likes
Anyway, there are a great many things wrong, which even a little bit of research would show.
For example, on the Strv 122B+ the side composite on the turret doesn’t protect against even the very basic RPG-7 projectile (PG-7V) with 300mm of penetration, despite all the marketing material stating that it provides all around RPG protection.
The answer from the devs to such things is always “we need hard values”, which might have been fine when talking about 60s tanks, but we’re in the age that NOTHING gets quoted values, or if they are it’s in the form of “meets STANAG level 6” or similar.
This reluctance to change the protection figures in game to even the most conservative estimates based on such information (360° RPG protection for example, or “medium caliber APFSDS protection”) is effectively killing any chance for the community to use what little information there is to at least get somewhat close to reality.
For example:
Such information is often rejected out of hand despite no better sources existing, purely because “it does not provide values”.
Well, even when we have values (see Swedish trials), the devs often do not implement them.
It’s quite simple, the protection level for the hull should be 700mm KE in a 35° frontal arc on the hull (skirts, front, etc)
Every time we make a report like this using the actual values from the Swedish trials and comparing directly to in-game performance, it gets rejected.
Edit:
For those wondering how the Swedish trials may still apply to 2A7V: Germany retained the C tech heavy skirts which were used on the TVM (I can prove this with picture evidence), so even the 2A5 and 2A6 should have this 30° arc providing ~623mm of KE protection.
2A7V either retains these C tech heavy skirts or gets improved D tech skirts (like Strv 122) BUT in addition it has that RPG catcher appliqué armour on the side of the hull which should improve KE protection as well.
13 Likes
out of curiousity, whats the RPG catcher u mentionned?
It’s the RHA (in the game) plates mounted to 2A7Vs hull sides behind the skirts.
1 Like
The stuff that is currently modelled as “20mm"RHA”
IRL most likely HHA since basically ALL plates of less than 40mm thick used in leo 2 construction are by Russian/Soviet definition HHA (and WT uses Russian/Soviet definition for all Soviet/Russian vehicles!).
6 Likes
Thanks guys, didnt know those even existed
Just for fun, I might go ahead and break my “no more bug reports” rule and make a bug report using all of gaijins lies about the 2A7V’s armor compared to the data they lie the tank is based on
2 Likes
While I’m at it, might as well show that 2A7 and 2A7V feature a spall liner in front of the loader, not just on the turret side but also on the turret front inside wall.
2A6 for comparison
9 Likes
maybe because its Classified like most Armor Values for Western Tanks but seeing how Reports about Armor are going atm it means until its Declassified it wont get any change So Smin the Reports about Modern Tanks need a change of Rules because of Classified Things like Armor
4 Likes
That’s what I sent in my feedback for 2024 Roadmap feedback.
Change the rules of classified armor tanks to weight-class parity based.
Things of similar weight & volume should have similar armor protection unless otherwise confirmed via unclassified documents.
this is something i agree with Modern Stuff like Tanks and Planes need new rules for Reports as for some you can only get a few secondairy sources
So you want direct values, but dont want people to leak classified information? That seems like a massive oxymoron. Using the Swedish trials (inaccurately as well given the 2A5 protection angles are still incorrect according to the Swedish trials) from over 30 years before the 2A7Vs existence?
Can you get me the details on what exactly the devs are smoking, because I might need some to stop an aneurysm from happening over this utter buffoonery the devs have pulled with this one. We have thrown books at the dev that shows them that they are incorrect, that the armor is modeled wrong, and should at least make the 2A7V ON PAR with the 122B+, but because the devs have pulled this “according to sources that agree with what we want to do” it just gets sent to the shadowrealm.
And its sooooo good to see TrickZZter back reporting on NATO tank bug reports, because he’s so unbiased when it comes to NATO equipment
14 Likes
but dont worry guys, we at gaijin entertainment at least modeled the 25 year more modern 2A7V according to the swedish trials. TRUST US
9 Likes
so have you guys even read what scav or i posted in there…
cuz if scav has to REPOST them here again
i assume that you guys havent…
it would also nice if GAIJIN could provide their sources, if they have better ones. since clearly if gaijin can have these sources and use them, they must not be export restricted and public domain, right?
same goes for the stinger manpad.
cuz in a ASSUMING vs actual documentation scenario, documentation should always win.
12 Likes
At very very least 2A7V should have same armor profile as strv122 not weaker than it and don’t forget it heavier than any Leopard 2 except PSO common logic where you think those extra weight came from?
5 Likes
@Smin1080p People are upset because they see how Gaijin is approaching stuff that people dug and report, spending time and making great effort to make things in the game better/more realistic as War Thunder brands itself as “realistic”. With blog like “Hull armour of M1 Abrams” you just cut a line and say “nah nah nah don’t bother us more, we don’t do that” while giving us poor explanation like M1 suspension or that German engineers could not provide better armour to A7 per 25years but Swedes could. As stated it is modeled wrongly and not even match actual protection from Swedish Trials, and in game code A7V applique amour has worse modifiers than 122s when the exact same company is producing them per 20 years. What’s the point of 122B+ being actually better protected than A7V when Swedes has every Leopard on top tier with good hull armour but Germany have only one.
Every top tier tank from now would be “assumed” and full of speculation and you should change approach how things would be modelled in the game.
10 Likes