I dont understand how they want people to bug report modern vehicles without giving classified information for more accurate numbers…they want solid evidence…BUT HOW???
This goes for almost every bug report for modern equipment
32 Likes
It makes absolutely no sense. On top of it, the guy didn’t even read the sources correctly since one source said the hull armor upgrade is made against emergent threat. None of this radiation liner nonsense.
Not gonna lie, this is looking bleak…
20 Likes
The report is no longer about whose evidence is more sufficient and reasonable. As long as they think it’s not, it will never be
13 Likes
Typical Gaijin
5 Likes
Every report on clear inconsistency and underestimation of NATO equipment performance basically gets the answer of “give us detailed info (that is classified) or dont bother”. Even ridiculously clear issues things like PUMA and Eitan having structural steel as part of their armor package get that sort of answer
4 Likes
Earlier I wrote in the M1A2 SEP V3 topic that the lower front plate had been increased, and this is visible in the photographs. I even made a comparison. The photos clearly show how much the lower front plate has been moved forward.
And the gaijin completely refuses to accept the fact that in addition to increasing the armor thickness, the armor was also modernized.
They even made the model of the turret and hull incorrectly.
27 Likes
it is impossible to give exact protection value the upgraded armor give because it is classified, but it definitely give better protection than before, i made a bug report too and i hope they accept:
M1A2C missing Next Evolution Armor (NEA) for turret & hull // Gaijin.net // Issues
What’s extremely incorrect is giving the exact hull protection value as SEPv2 lmao cuz we KNOW an armor upgrade occured. They sure as hell did not give SEPv3 larger armor space just so the crew can have more space to stretch their arms and legs ffs
10 Likes
Too vague bro give us sekert dokuments or go kick rocks, we are busy making Russian ERA magically equivalent to 8 inches of steel plates based on nonsense jank modeling of physics and making stronk russian crew immune to 30mm belt detonations
5 Likes
This is a correct response.
They need a percentage over old, or other specifying number to go off of.
Vague claims of improved is not proof, it’s indication, but indication is not proof.
So blaming the developers when it’s General Dynamics and/or our military being the ones keeping information to themselves is irresponsible to do.
FOIA requesting the improvement might get you some information that isn’t classified, it might be that such information is classified.
After all, if they allow vague statements for this bug report, they’ll have to allow it for all [including Russian vehicles].
Uses NATO sources, & all are publicly available.
Also, Relikt only protects 200mm angled over 60 degrees & double stacked.
1 Relikt ERA block only protects ~100mm angled over 60 degrees in-game & likely IRL.
2 Likes
well it got closed cuz i didt list where the 2 page I used came from, so ima fix it and remake another report
1 Like
Here is the explanation, which is weird because they guessed the armor on the turret but refused to do it on the hull.
22 Likes
actual bs lmao, they are happy to add relict, t-90m turret, puma armour, etc they dont care for numbers unless its an abrams lmfao
7 Likes
It’s selective bias basically
7 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT Isn’t that aerial picture proof enough that the hull armor was increased?
Not only that but the picture even provides an actual LOS number increase of the hull armor which can then be put together with the weight difference between the SEP v2 and SEP v3 to get a ballpark number.
8 Likes
made another one + source name included
M1A2C missing Next Evolution Armor (NEA) for turret & hull (pt2) // Gaijin.net // Issues
8 Likes
good lack bro but they are just gonna shut it down
1 Like
Good to have you try again but we are cooked. NGAP weight simulator on hull apparently doesn’t exist according to Gaijin so if your report is closed. Late US Abram are pretty much dead in the water.
2 Likes
there is no nato sources for relict era as far as i can see, and no, era does 250mm front and 200m with a single pannel on the side (a lot better than what its really going to do) (era doesnt even worth this way)
probably cuz the armor value is classified lmao like what are we supposed to do? we KNOW it has better armor, but since we cant provide the value cuz it is classified, then its just gona keep the old armor AND suffer from additional weight? lmao
5 Likes
In any case, this is just as blatant a rejection as the last time a CM response was made about DU for another subjective goal post to jump thrlugh
1 Like