Make it accurate as possible
If u cant then estimate
Its not that hard
If im not mistaken gaijin used chines source about the python 3 so not us for merkava?
No its not
It says thos vehicle are in practice with spall liners there nothing to be confused about
If something its sound like u are anti bias
The Chinese bought Python 3s and even had them licensed
usa also tested the merkavas so either way its a valid source
You said it should be a thing of balancing, so it doesn’t really make sense why Ariete doesn’t have the full spall liner coverage, just like 2A7.
Nothing says Merkavas had them explicitly.
Neither the location of the liner is specified.
When did US procured the Merkava 4s ?
Balance with realisem ofc
im not saying u should make up things from nothing but if there is spall liner u can add on a weak mbt then u should add it
If ariete is missing spall liners and its realistic then gaijin should add them
Yes it does u twist their words in unreasonably way
If earlier merkavas were with spall liner so the best one is without it?
Cmon now
And even if this point is somwhat valid the earlier merkavas for sure needs to have spall liner
Ariete has them but not to an extent as a 2A7 for example. Why is that the case ?
Again, you don’t know what explicitly means.
Source needed.
If it doesnt have like 2a7 then its shouldnt and then its a br problem
[quote=“MotorolaCRO, post:818, topic:160727”]
No need for it to be explicit
Gaijin made full ships and tanks from scraps so they cant put a bit of spall liners?
If you want it to be a good source then it does need to be explicit.
Ships have different rules for addition as well.
Adding spall liners to Merkavas using such a vague source would simply be an argument starter about bias.
Spall liners iirc need more research too. Asked once about the TTD having spall liners (mentioned in its brochure) but more is needed. If I had to guess, it would be the same for Merkava 4s
If there is another vehicle that known to have spall liners then it should get it too
Better to have inaccurate spall liners then none
Especially when its so necessary.
Hell, we even have photographical and video evidence of Challenger 2’s missing lower front plate spall liners and not even that is enough, apparently.
I just think this isn’t about evidence or truth anymore. At this point it feels like everything around spall liners is arbitrary, to be honest.
Otherwise, the lack of CR2 LFP spall liners can’t be justified. Or Leopard 2 PSO’s hull. Or Leopard 2PL, or ZTZ99A, etc. All “accepted and known issues” for years… yet nothing has been done.
No matter how much evidence is presented, it’s either never “enough”, or it spends the rest of its days on the “accepted, forwarded” limbo.
It’s not known.
The most important part of the LFP is already covered with spall liner, with only the driver’s feet being unprotected.
Again its u against washington
U are forcing urself to not accept it for some reason
I cannot accept something that isn’t written explicitly.
It’s actually a you problem if you think that document proves literally anything, because it doesn’t.
Ok in that case remove everything that isnt explicit from the game including all the vehicles that made up
I don’t think that removing half of the Japanese TT is viable.
If you want your Merkavas to be artificially buffed just say so, I like that approach much better than trying to use extremely weak sources to prove it’s realistic.
Still missing the entirety of the actual LFP; shots there leading to ammo detonations and crew deaths because of all the spalling is extremely common. Having its missing spall liners would greatly increase the tank’s survivability, so at least it would have… something going for it.
Off-topic post from the Merkavas, but did anything ever come up with the M1128’s spall liner? When they were added, Stona said it was one of the few vehicles that had “good evidence” and that it’d get a spall liner in a future update. That was two years ago…
