I already did that, you can see it here: M1A2 SEP ( v1, v2 ) missing hull armor // Gaijin.net // Issues
2 Likes
Excellent. Please continue.
Yep that’s it those are the armor values they use in game. Its crazy how sepv1 and sepv2 are using some export non-DU armor package that was made before sepv1 and sepv2 even existed.
11 Likes
AFAIK the FMS armor that was sent to Sweden did not provide the same level of protection as HAP-2, only the Improved FMS package offered to Greece and Turkey was just as good. The USA also tested some version of the Improved FMS in Sweden, but it was most likely an early version because the Swedes still complained about the lack of DU armor.
6 Likes
I see! I thought showing support verbally was a good thing, but you are right- so I deleted my comment!
I would like to encourage others to delete their comments too, as to leave the report as clean and clear as possible as stated above.
Hope it goes through. That would make my abrams quite nice.
The Abrams needs alot of work.
That’s what I ve talked about. “Trust me bro” is enough for T-tanks to make a suggestion to Devs in 3 hours with a source being only link to YouTube video but 300 response thread, 10 bug reports and effort of many people with hard data and proofs is not enough to give Abrams additional 150mm of protection on the hull. Now it seems they are just ignoring it. @Smin1080p @TrickZZter @Stona_WT What the actual f guys
9 Likes
Video of the T-90MS used to buff T-90M. Nice
5 Likes
If i am not mistaken was there not a big drama in the Chinese community some time back about a certain moderator doing the exact same thing like here and rejecting good documentation sources which caused same kind of heated discussions and led to some change?
2 Likes
@NoreZi @Fwostylicious @Mackerel33295
That’s photographic evidence. That’s nothing to do with “trust me bro”.
That’s the same level of evidence used to bug report Challengers and Chieftains that were acknowledged.
All you’re doing is showing that Gaijin is consistent & fair.
Armor amount isn’t a spall liner, those are separate things.
Hey Fwosty… I guess they have British bias according to you… this screenshot is from 2 days ago BTW.
Getting mad over Gaijin being fair & consistent is the worst take you’ve done.
1 Like
It’s not even the same model of tank. Besides, how many photos of official documents have they rejected at this point?
2 Likes
They just went about their business as usual. haha
1 Like
T-90MS is an export T-90M. It’s literally the same tank just exported.
I would like your documentation showing this. Export Abrams are of course the same thing, right?
3 Likes
Export Abrams tend to have non-DU options instead of DU, but otherwise they’re the same. Different manufacturers do different things as well.
You might have confused T-90SM and T-90MS BTW.
T-90MS is the T-90M but exported.
T-90A/SM is the T-90A/S but modernized.
Weird naming that I don’t know who did it.
Reminds me that there are two entirely different T-80UM2s that exist. One with APS and one with thermals, and neither are the same tank.
1 Like
You’d at least expect them to get a non-export version for changes to the non-export model. Some export tanks add or remove features at the customer’s request as well.
1 Like
That is fair.
It’s best to look at other reports next time tho.
Video/photographic evidence is used for visual proof a lot in reports.
Spall liner will be heavily video/photo evidence based, but also written in some cases where the spall liner looks very similar to metal… why Abrams…
4 Likes
Incidentally, they planned to add spall liners to many vehicles from below.This is why these reports were readily accepted. If you want to compare this case, you should bring the case of the LEO2A5PSO’s upper body armour. Much evidence was gathered but rejected.