we already have, several times, it is not being used, its not being implemented and its not being explanied. which is why i asked for you to check with them about why. i’ve seen several people make reports with sources Developers already use just for the reports to not be implemented.
I’m not saying “not a bug”, i’m saying it was sent to developers and then no answer or closed without implementation. we want to know why.
but we have not gotten an answer. only " we will implement to best of ability’s according to available sources". when the available sources say other numbers that’s a very confusing answer.
“At the same time, the turret’s resistance at heading angles of +/-20 degrees is exactly close to the resistance of the hull armour under frontal fire.”
Bruh. So close it’s off by nearly 90mm. That’s ignoring how that’s for a vehicle with significantly inferior armour configuration (B-technology & D-2 add-on).
Meanwhile here’s what the armour should be providing right now considering Germany & Sweden both used C-technology & MEXAS-H (D-technology) for their armour starting from the 2A5 (why would 2A7V downgrade to B-technology from that, especially when it received new inserts for the hull, so an upgrade from C-technology??)
Now the hull armour is off by an average of 100mm! If we shrink that to 20 degree arc for C-tech + D-technology configuration, we could probably get averages of 850mm…
If you can please link specifically the reports that were closed with no answer at all, then we can investigate to find out why there was no response. Whenever a report is closed, it is generally always answered as to why.
Okay, so you want hard numbers, but dont want classified data. Do you see how this is very contradictory in applying armor to the most modern of tanks available?
so many posts without concrete answers. the values in documents are not represented in game, but documents are used?
and no information on why the values in game are different from documents.
but ignored in favour of a 30 year old source that has no relation with the 2a7v anymore.
I clearly states that its improvement, but if gajin doesnt wanna upgrade them to strongly at least give them the same armor as the Strv122, but all sources state pretty much that the leo 2a7v would have stronger protection then the Strv122s, for balance reasons that would be ok, but stating it cant be like that is just wrong
There was an ekhem, something something (if you know what I mean) in regards to 2A5s protection sometime ago, it was cough reported via using the tables from the Swedish Trials and umm, it was rejected cus some guy on a Nii Stali forum said those “numbers” are impossible to achieve.
(They rejected a report to fix 2A5s protection because they don’t believe it could’ve achieved those protection levels… yea).
That’s the case. For most modern MBT there are literally 0 primary sources about exact protection but somehow Gaijin could “assume” protection for those tanks. People dug out every possible source they could just to provide information but is often rejected or provided as suggestion. “Suggestion” means:
A. We don’t give a fuck
B. For balance reasons we can’t
C. We will consider when it is needed.
And often after this being suggested is often forgotten. Like PSO reports about spallliners and missing NERA hull armour at its sides. Like Abrams intense spalling, turret ring issue and missing armour at LFP directly at fuel tanks.
Also many report that are suggested are still viable, as report based on Swedish trials about Leopard’s armor but are just ignored. We know that Devs could not do everything at once.
This has been forwarded as a suggestion. It has not been rejected.
This is a duplicate and explained in the last comment as to why it was not accepted.
These reports have not been forwarded yet, so has no response from the developers. They have not been rejected.
Forwarded reports that do not have an answer are under review. Answers are posted once the report is concluded.
The spall liners posts includes the developers answer on the Leopard 2A7V report that came out after this report was posted. The report itself has no references or material.
This report was the main one that lead to the response being created in the article. Hence why it was posted as an answer in response.
Their response was a “nu uh” even after we showed them the protection level cannot possibly only match a prototype from 1992 (duh, completely different internal armours…). How do you even expect us to react?
So, you say that we can use secondary sources, but then tell us without hard numbers it can’t be used and when we do give hard numbers, it’s treated as a “suggestion”?
