I find it funny that Mr. Damage is willing to cite NiiStali as “evidence” and then claim that we consider that or the UVZ propaganda book as valid sources, when even Gaijin won’t accept the Russian estimates of 750mm KE for the Abrams. XD
The 750mm estimate isn’t a good source, you said that Mr. Damage. Even the Swedish trial M1A2 export variant exceeds those numbers on the turret. That book was nothing but butthurt propaganda trying to save face as they malded and coped about their tanks being BTFO’d by the Abrams in Iraq not once, but twice.
We never said either of those sources you like are good. Gaijin straight up rejected the armor estimate from the UVZ book.
I don’t know if they will. The spall liner stuff comes from Tom Clancy, a diff book entirely. Would probably be better off in a different thread for that topic.
There are many sources that use Paul Lakowski’s estimates. If only SEP could get such a hull, it would be fine. Currently, the SEPv2 having the same hull as the M1A2 1993 is a joke.
Well, we have multiple unrelated sources giving those numbers, then. I wanted to make sure to provide estimates from a physical book, and not a webpage or something digital and easily edited.
There isn’t a point for rank 8, it’s just so they can sell the top tier premiums whilst pretending it’s not top tier and further compress BRs and ruin the game with rushed and badly implemented features like the spall liner.
Wait, Gaijin arbitrarily didn’t add spall liners for vehicles known to have spall liners. Weird, seems they’ve chosen to arbitrarily not add spall liners to vehicles which are know to have had spall liners. They seem to be arbitrarily only adding it to top tier vehicles haphazardly so now half of top tier vehicles are completely outclassed arbitrarily due to Gaijin’s arbitrary decision not to model spall liners for all Rank VIII vehicles.
They didn’t have time to add spall liners to everything.
Humans are only capable of so much.
Go ahead, play a Counterstrike Tournament while cooking dinner… won’t work out too well.
So the Leclerc bug report with the same russian source got denied. I have a bad feeling about the SEPv2 bug report now, but maybe the larger backlash might slightly influence their decision.
Yes, they didn’t have time to implement spall liners for all the vehicles which contain spall liners for this update. So why did they add spall liners this update?
