Furina made report with good detail not ranting finding much as he can i don’t see him ranting or anything maybe i’m start to think staff really don’t like someone to prove them wrong or there something behind that?
2 Likes
I made a report after the last one was rejected where I included all the existing evidence (linked older reports to it), then called out the devs on their lies, so technically speaking I was arguing with the devs there.
(It was closed down about a minute after posting). Granted, I don’t see how that gave ground to temp-banning me since I was still providing evidence, so I’ll just chuck it up to a “welp then” moment.
8 Likes
They clearly want a leaving of a core player base I assume.
I start to think that maybe dev really doesn’t like when someone know about stuff more than them or they just want to keep bias continue or laziness or incompetent maybe all of that because I really don’t see how hard it can be to make 2A7V on protection on par with Strv122 (it very least for acceptable) they can just copy and paste strv122 put the longer gun and gen 3 thermal and call it a day but for some reason they end up made 2A7V armor even weaker than 2A5 if not because composite screen tbh I don’t know how can they do that? heavier but weaker what kind of logic is this? If they work base on common sense this game would be better than it is right now
3 Likes
It’s heavier than 122 B+ by 1.2t, not to mention PSO weights 67 tons with the same amount of additional armour and B tech insert like B+. Where is logic being that? They didn’t even bother to model better transmission on A7V to make it accelerate quicker in a sake of top speed because of shorter gears. It’s outclassed in acceleration even by 2A4 and PSO. It’s all done on purpose.
@Smin1080p could you tell us when we can expect a dedicated blog on the issues of the 2A7V? Cr2 was next i heard.
This blog spall-liners-mbts was honestly taken very badly by the player base. Is there some translation issues going on or some other communication issue?
The developers posted this weird graphic, claiming it shows the protection against 600mm APFSDS, when both ingame via protection analysis and in actual battle, that is quickly disproven as both the UFP and much of the turret can be easily penetrated.
Here an actual protection map against 600mm:
Why do the developers post such a misleading graphics and even base their conclusions on it?
Do the developers lack the tools to test the armor? Is that why there are so many armor holes in vehicles that get pushed to live?
The blog also didnt really answer any of our questions regarding the German vehicles, specifically the Leo 2s.
In the next blog on the leopard 2 please provide statements both by the game designer and your German consultant.
For the upcoming blog on the Leo 2 please include the following questions:
- The developers claim that the Leo 2s are implemented according to the swedish trials. Yet most of the armor is underperforming, sometimes by over 500mm (e.g. Mantlet armor). Why is it so difficult for the developers to simply adjust the armor modifiers to match the Swedish data? Please provide a in-depth explanation, specifically on the armor package upgrades - B-, C- and D-tech. And how the addons combine with the internal armor.
- As the developers stated themselves, the Swedish trials show B-tech internal armor + D-tech external armor. Why is it so difficult to combine these known armor values with C-tech or D-tech internal armor? Specifically because C-tech protection values are known from other trials.
- Why does Gajin refuse to believe that after 30 years of improvement in material and armor the most modern tanks made no improvement over B-tech, despite primary sources showing otherwise? In many other cases gajin just guesses armor values with no reference, yet here where we provided concert details on relative protection improvements, they are simply discarded and ignored. Specifically the “Übersicht Schutz” by KMW that displays the relative increase in armor between the Leopards or the AMAP generational view. Why is that?
- How do you explain the weight increase between the Leopard 2 models if the armor wasnt increased - specifically why is the Strv 122B+ lighter than the 2A7V despite having additional armor addons that increase the weight by over two tons.
- “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.”
Currently the Hull protection of the Leopard 2A7V is equal to that of B-tech + D-addons. This combination provides according to Swedish trials 670mm RHAe. 350mm Hull + 320mm addon = 670mm. This matches what we see ingame. How is it not B-tech armor below? - Where are the heavy side skirts for the 2A7V? Why cant we mount them?
- Most eastern tanks, T-90M, BVM, T-80U, Tungska all received upgrades as modules, yet not a single Leopard 2 does. Why? Even Abrams can not choose to demount its ERA as a module.
- Many vehicles like the Leo2, CV90, Puma etc have STANAG ratings that define the minimum protection, yet the vehicles ingame don’t reflect that. Is STANAG 4569 not good enough?
- For example the issues mentioned here: Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft - #929 by dotEXCEL
- Most NATO vehicles have greatly underperforming armor relative to their trials - or official ratings. Yet Eastern vehicles often even exceed their known protection values. Could you in detail explain why that is?
- When a vehicle is rated to withstand e.g. an RPG7 in a specific armor location - why is this not reflected ingame - despite it being reported many times?
- Why do vehicles, like the 2A7V get pushed to the liver server with broken armor (holes/incorrect values), when this can be easily tested with automated tools?
- Why do issues from the 2A5 get copied to tanks like the 2A7V, when there are reports 5 years ago that pointed out this being wrong?
- To name a few: The neck guard on all later Leos should be a 400mm thick plate - instead it provides zero protection - an armor hole. This issue is 5 years old and has been reported multiple times on almost every leopard 2 released.
- Most leos don’t have the turret bottom modeled correctly - as a result the turret is floating above the hull creating a ~50mm gap armor hole that even smaller autocannons can perforate. Why is this so difficult to fix, when all you have to do is to add the turret bottom plate with actual thickness?
- Why does the gun cradle have holes modeled into it, but not the bolts / mounts that fill the holes? This creates an armor hole. Other tanks like e.g T-80 don’t even have their coax machine gun holes modeled. Yet bolt fix-points are modeled as empty holes in the Leo 2, why?
- The armor mantlet is between 900mm and 1700mm LOS thick. We have proven both with official technical drawings and 3D scans - in addition to the swedish trials that the minimum protection exceeds 600-720mm. Instead currently this armor array can not properly stop 140mm pen APFSDS from a cv9040. Why does it again, take over 5+ years to address a major armor hole on this family of tanks?
- The Wedge armor is missing internal plates that improve the arc protection greatly.
- The improved driver hatch has been measured to be 65mm thick with fotos and everything. Yet gajin refuses on every Leo 2 model to model it as such. We report it every time. Instead it only gets 30mm. Why is that?
- Tanks like T-90M or T-80BVM have internal walls and turret drives modeled. E.g. the carrousel armor. Tanks like the Leo 2, Puma, Abrams also have thin walls, or other modules in their turret basket that act as armor against spall in a similar manner. Yet this feature seems to be exclusive to russian tanks. When can we expect this feature to be implemented on other vehicles, or will gajin discard that idea and remove the internal armor of the T-series again?
- Why is almost all external armor on modern western tanks, even super modern high hardness steel often just modeled as normal RHA, or even has modifiers much lower than that (e.g. the armor blocks left and right of the gun mantlet). While on Eastern tanks their structural parts - e.g. the mounts of the ERA are modled as HHA?
- Why do the spall liners on the hull side of the 2A7V produce more spall than e.g. a T-80BVM with no spall liner? A dev confirmed it to be intentional. Please explain how spall is calculated here, and if this is a realistic or intentional game design.
- HE shells (overpressure) does not seem to be affected by Spall liners - despite that being their main focus. Will this be addressed?
- The loader of tanks can be knocked out - but the autoloader, a huge mechanic component of tanks can not. Please provide a detailed explanation why that is, and when we can expect them to be implemented as a damageable component.
- The Gun barrels of NATO tanks are wrapped in thermal sleeves that are almost irrelevant to the gun barrels function. It increases the barrels hitbox and makes them easier to destroy. Yet they are part of the gun barrels hitbox, while on other tanks that have support structures around their barrel that is not the case, why?
- The addons on the Leos have been tested IRL for their multi hit capabilities - yet ingame armor plates such as the addons get destroyed in 2-3 hits from KE rounds or 1-2 SC - making them hardly more effective than single use ERA. Does gajin not “believe” that they can withstand multiple hits?
- Why is DM11 - a highly modern round - so poorly implemented? Currently its basically a worse HE round. It lacks its penetration, - its 150 meter lethal range - its ability to be programmed.
- Similar other modern rounds like AHEAD are basically non functional - despite being core features of the given vehicles. When will this be addressed? Please provide a rough timeline in your upcoming roadmap.
- When will rounds like DM53 be correctly implemented? Its core features of its anti-ERA capabilities are long known - in addition to its explosive incendiary unit that increase post penetration lethality.
- Where are rounds like DM63 PELE - when can we expect them?
- Currently its not possible to program rounds like DM11 to automatically lead and intercept moving targets. Other platforms like SPAAs can already do so. When can we expect this to come to the game?
- The accuracy of guns in war thunder is one of the largest aspect of gameplay. Yet Gajin seems to ignore the actually accuracy of guns - or any reports related to them. Why is that? Why does a WW2 tiger tank have better accuracy than a Leopard 2A7V? Why does a BMP2 have the same accuracy as IFV Pumas single fire gun - that sacrifices accuracy for rate of fire? We reported issues on the gun accuracy (with primary sources and trials), but never heard anything in return.
- Do you think its fair that vehicles that sacrifice accuracy for higher RPM dont get an accuracy penalty?
- When will we see functional APUs in the game?
- When will we see regenerative steering? A Key feature of the mobility of NATO tanks.
- Why are near useless features like entrenching, or the pedal efftect that ruins hit cams added to the game - but crucial game mechanics (accuracy, FCS, missile fuses, damage models, programmable rounds, data link…) ignored?
Puma/KF41 has a similar amount of issues (MUSS; MAW, APS, AHEAD, armor, accuracy, post pen dmg, spall liners, and many more) for over a year now. Will they also get a dedicated blog?
**Amendment 1 (2024.01.17 14:40) **
- As per dotEXCEL post, the 20° and 30° protection is far from the own source (swedish trials) you are using: Does the 20° protection provide 300mm KE on +95% of the tank? Lets check.
Spoiler
Against 300mm KE the protection of the 2A7V is ~68.000 penetrations to ~61.000 non penetrations or ~52% even if you exclude the engine, this hardly matches the requirement of 95% coverage.
Specifically the Mantlet, Lower front plate and D-tech side skirts are massively underperforming.
The skirt specifically are supposed to protect again C1 (LKE II prototype) of up to 750mm at 17.5° per swedish trials.
If one looks at the protection again 600mm KE, this might almost appear to match the graph, if one forgets that the 2A7V does not user B-tech armor - but much new armor instead.
- the poorly modeling of the beak armor Community Bug Reporting System
- Why are there holes in the cradle?
Not only are the holes too large and at the wrong locations, they are missing the steel bolts that fill these holes. Why are they modeled to begin with? for the sight and MG I can understand, but the mount points for the gun, why?
Meanwhile even actual weakpoints like the MG ports on Russian tanks are not even modled. No other tank has bolt holes molded. So please explain why, and when this will be corrected.
Cr3: Only the Mg port hole is modeled:
- The entire turret is floating above the hull
When the turret should sit flush with the hull as shown here
We even offered Gajin a detailed 3D traced model (photogrammetry based) model that reconstructs each weld of the turret base in high detail
Here one of the parts of the 3D scan:
Here you can see the 50mm thick turret bottom:
The turret ring is also fully hiden below the hull roof, however ingame it is exposed in the gap.
- Why does gajin claim they have not enough information that modifes the transmission performance, yet also simultaneously modifies the transmission of the 2A7V to reduce its top speed. Shouldn’t it be trivial to calculate the modified gear ratio of the final gear to improve the acceleration?
- DM73 doesnt increase the Penetration in anyway that would matter, just a higher velocity making it easier to aim. Is it really that big of a balance concern that this round wont be added?
- Will you add the spall liners infront of the gunner, and the turret bottom (2A6 and later)? We reported this along with the other liners, but this was overlooked.
We already provided detailed images showing where the bottom liners were added.
Or How the panels infront of the crew are positioned:
- Why is the protection of the Gun mantlet still so low. We have the swedish trials that shows its protection at 20°, and even high detailed drawings and mesurments of it. For the gun mantlet I even contacted the German Defence MoD and provided a declassified drawing of the Mantlet, including its implementation in the above mentioned 3D model (Provided per DM to the mods). Isnt it common sense that such a large LOS should provide more than 140mm protection? Why did gajin implement it they way they did?
I am also open to discuss or directly talk to the German consultant in both English and German for questions on the issues I brought up here.
40 Likes
Pretty sure we wont see any answer ti this
I don’t think that will except any answer because Gaijin have zero cooperation with community. Remember google (excel) table with armor values? They just want our money, but don’t want to cooperate or even collect our opinion. That not good for such project with online gaming and big community…
And he does not want to be mass pinged by people like you
Definitely. But there is an option I use it, also send my apologies.
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RyU2kd8yAx3O
can you answer me? Why has this bug been submitted and acknowledged for more than 4 months and has not been fixed?
Fun fact:
It should be controlled by the loader, not the commander. Right now when your commander dies, you lose about the only thing the PSO brought over the Leopard 2A5.
12 Likes
Also smoke grenade launchers seems a little bit smaller thus not blocking 50 cal depression.
gaijin say ¯_(ツ)_/¯
well looks like its just some useless comments from staff that mean nothing again it feels like the we know better than you Post in May 2023
1 Like
so many sources where posted like many have already said then why are none of them used and why is it always Germany America Britain France Japan which dont get their stuff fixed what has to happen so the Devs follow their OWN RULES
you know what i think that Gaijin used Russian sources for NATO Tanks as some sources that got posted by some somehow give the exact armor or mobility that we have ingame of course its not 100% confirmed but i get the feeling that its the case
That’s not right. I really don’t understand which sources they’re use, but all remember a table made by
Gaijin about all armor?