you’re wrong, it only works well against cumulative effects
The anger is about the addon armour. Everybody knew the base armour would be the same as the 2A4 because it is a 2A4.
The fact that the arrowheads are RHA and aren’t composite is the problem. If there was composite BEHIND the RHA then people wouldn’t be so mad and felt they were cheated especially when every other Leo 2 (that has arrowheads) uses composite instead of RHA.
This image quite literally proves that while yes it is RHA, composite inserts are used in operations, but are left out for training and field exercises. This is fine but the tank in-game is supposed to be the 2A4M used in Afghanistan operations which would have had their composites inserts, if this was instead the field exercise/training variant than I would be much more understanding.
2 Likes
How good is the current ingame protection in comparison to 2A7V? Maybe I’m bad @ armor viewer…but it looks far better imho!!! (against russian top darts, not the 600++ mm pen ones…).
Composite inserts are not used. Gaijin has it right. 10mm of RHA for the frontal armour add-ons is correct, I checked it myself.
Sorry, “I checked it myself” doesn’t put forward a lot of trust. Source?
I’m not debating on the RHA, I’m curious about the composite inserts.
Do you know if there are spall liners on the inside?
All I can find are these pics which aren’t super clear.
Spoiler
I have seen no indication that they exist outaide of an older document which mentions them. The mounts arent common and i havent seen reference to additional composites in the manual.
It does have a set of spall liners. All located in the turret. Commander and loader side walls and in front of the gunner. Gaijin was provided better inages of the SL and still denied adding them to the vehicle.
3 Likes
Any chance you could post them here? Or DM me them? I have made over 100 reports including for the C2 MEXAS spall liner, so I understand quite well how to make successful reports.
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out, I was under the wrong impression for a while.
Problem was the reports were made by a tsnker itself specialy for those reports.
Becsause of that and him uploading it to a kind of blog website. The pictures were stated as kot reliable enough
in the armour viewer, it works pretty okay against most rounds.
“Not a reliable source”
The images I took specifically showed the spall liners and locations, gaijin still denied adding them since apparently its “not a bug”
1 Like
their words not mine shrug
They talked about how a 2A4M crewman was not a repiable source then neglected the images attached on that basis. It just seems like they are being lazy.
1 Like
ignoring the obvious spall liner, how are you finding its implementation (if you got it)
I did buy it. Im very biased since I used to drive the thing so take what i say with a grain of salt. Generally im happy with the implementation minus a few things.
The visual model is incomplete. The upgraded suspension gaijin mentioned in the devblog was not modeled.
The hull ammunition rack is too big. Part of the mine protection kit was reducing the size of the rack.
The lack of spall liners obviously.
And the ammunition being wrong. Realistically it should be firing DM53A1 and NM253 rather than KE-W and DM12A1.
2 Likes
yeah thats a standard mistake they do with the mineplate
thats balancing, lets be fair we wouldnt want the 2a4m can to end up 11.7 with its realistic ammo