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.
9 Likes
And also things like “we want exact number of Abrams hull armour, dimensions and material used” from @TrickZZter and then " we assume it’s like that" and " our experts think Igla is 10g so Stinger too" doesn’t really help and just heat up things more.
7 Likes
Has there been a discussion at Gaijin around making an open and clear statement that the armour as well as other attributes surrounding these modern MBTs are attributed based on whatever Gaijin deems to be balanced? Rather than historically accurate?
Providing bug reports with primary source evidence leads to: ‘‘Duplicate’’ (even though the original was forwarded and subsequently done nothing with), ‘‘Not a bug’’ and dismissed or ‘‘Acknowledged’’ and subsequently never to be heard of again.
If Gaijin dropped the pretence of creating fully accurate armour models based on source material, and instead admitted it’s all balance-based, there would likely be much less annoyance in the community in regards to errors.
12 Likes
Problem here is that it isn’t.
I genuinely believe that their statements are honest.
I was in the same boat as you before and you probably know since you have been around the forums for a long time, but I have very recently been shown stuff that is very much evidence to the contrary.
I can and will not make it public because the relevant individuals are not at fault.
Trust me, it’s not a balance tool that the devs simply don’t want to name as one.
I heavily disagree with most of their recent statementss and am fully convinced that they are wrong, but it’s their genuine standpoint.
It might be because of personal bias but certainly not for balance purposes in the game.
2 Likes
This:
Is very difficult to get around though.
They claim that the armour is modelled off of the Swedish documents, yet the armour doesn’t even correctly match the values presented. Furthermore, when this gets bug reported and acknowledged numerous times, it simply gets discarded and ignored.
They’ve also been shown that various vehicles received armour improvements (Strv 122B+), but Gaijin chooses not to model those improvements simply because no concrete data points are given.
That’s being less historically accurate than just guesstimating an armour increase.
9 Likes
I plotted the protection of the 2A7V and the protection of the 2A5 by simulating around 300.000 shots each.
Threat is Dm53 (652mm pen)
2A7V According to the devs:
2A7V in reality:
2A5 in reality:
Notable how much weaker the 2A7V turret is compared to the 2A5, including many more armor holes
There might also be some internal armor plate missing on the 2A7Vs left side.
All hits on the left over the track around the APU can fragment into the engine and radiator
Some notes:
- The UFP on the 2A5 doesnt pen, but it ricochets into the turret damaging the gun or penetrating (hence green).
- Some areas on the 2A7V didnt return a simulation value of the penetration, I had to edit that in manually.
I’ll post the 20° from the side to match the swedish trials tomorrow.
12 Likes
I don’t know what to say… but i feel like 2A7V are unfinish model and because it seem doing good in it current state that why gaijin don’t bother fixing it.
2 Likes
I’m curious to know how you do this, it’s quite nice and seems much more granular and accurate than the built-in protection analysis tool.
I vaguely remember many years ago when people made a custom mission or something to shoot thousands of rounds on a vehicle to find armour holes, but I doubt I will find it again.
I ask because I have the STANAG 4569 documents which detail testing procedures and protection levels, MANY vehicles that have such protection schemes in-game do not meet it in the slightest., but exact % covered would be nice to obtain
2 Likes
I feel it as well, the engine and the radiator of the 2A7V are like more exposed (being in the same chassi as other Leo 2 tanks) and the radiator tend to damage with a 50cal side hit or any artillery explosion at 10 meter for example damages it, when on other Leo 2 does nothing. I dont know why but i feel the 2A7V the weaker of the Leo 2 Family in game, when in reality is the best armored in the family. Is like more fragile due to the rushed development and bad modeling issue
1 Like
No I might be wrong but isn’t the 2A7 missing the add on roof armour?
2A7V does not have extra roof armour.
that’s 2A7HU but yes it doesnt have extra roof armor
no dragoon posted a german 2a7V, if its different maybe the danish version.
But 2A7Hu has a completly different camo scheme with even yellow integrated, personaly i love their camos scheme
i just noticed the cammo i confused it with the HU cuz it had the weird front skirts things
1 Like
Hmmm don’t which Leo 2 it was then as I’ve seen some with add on roof armour