My man 2.5k photos of destroyed equippment from the soviet era and modern production from conflicts that are happening around the world (one of which is in the EU continent) check out Oryx who counts loosses :) some of those photos are used in analysis by people who know more then we all here together and they say what happened and how some “facts” that you provided are absolutley false…
You can even use google to search for those photos/sites which do A DETAILED ANALYSIS and show how most of the stuff that companies state specially from the russian side were false and how much bs some of them provided…
Unless this is some visual bug but somehow with the recent hotfix update they bugged the sepv2s armor it lost 88RHA armor on the side turret compared to SEPv1 lol.
Expecting A3 at current BRs wasn’t going to happen.
As for armor, that bug report is MASSIVE and will take a while.
Spall liner was reported later as well.
If you look they hold the same protection value just not the correct information. I don’t know how Gaijin expects people to see them as competent enough to balance these vehicles much less determine what is valid information if they can’t even properly copy and paste stats.
The niistali site is only talking about certain protected areas of the tank like its turret protection which is most likely where that 1000mm figure comes from, that is already in game, go check out the ufp though…
Regardless Gaijin doesn’t model “anti-ERA” APFSDS’s i.e. according to other sources M829A2 should already be going through Kontakt-5, this source likewise states Relikt didn’t seem to affect DM53 or M829A3 much.
According to this source the only ERA that could even stop DM53 was dublet/Nizh via a multi-layered ERA configuration.
In the end however it will probably remain unknown as to how M829A3 and Relikt interact with one another for years if not decades, niistali never had M829A3 to even test against so it is pure speculation on their end, what we do know however is that the west i.e. I know for a fact that the US and UK did test their rounds against T-80Us in the early 90s, although apparently the US even got their hands on a T-72BU (T-90), regardless M829A2 did enter service not long after they tested it against a T-80U.
While I do respect that the devs are humen and need time, they really should have that dev blog out of the door in the week after christmas (first week of January).
Not saying that it should be fixed by then, although it would be nice, just a blog going over the sources from the report and their own sourcss and saying at the end “we are planning to buff/fix the Abrams by doing X within Y timeframe” would be sufficient for me.
If you are going to rush an update like that you should set a hard timeline for when to expect fixes for said broken update.
Keep in mind that a lot of Gaijin employees seem to celebrate Orthodox Christmas (7th January next year), as well as some who celebrate regular Christmas (25th December). As a result War Thunder development always seems to be quite heavily disrupted between Christmas and mid January.
Something to note from now on the live server ive been pening the turret cheeks on the abrams alot more with the Type 10 and Ariete did they manage to nerf that or bug it now
@Vamilad since that thread got locked i guess i will continue with the more appropriate thread:
They didnt, its why T-72/T-90 use the composite of T-72B if im not misstaken. And the Abrams in this threads case uses the armor composition of like a 80s Abrams. Even tho its pretty wellknown that domestic Abrams in the US has DU inserts at the minimun on later variants.
