Thank you for keeping us informed! Are spall liners planned for further tanks? With the planned changes, I feel like minor nations might be even less competitive at top tier.
Second question: and update on the performance of the tracking of FnF missiles like spikes? With the additional spall liners, theyll be even less effective I presume.
I know there’s none in the demo turret, I’m not denying that.
What I am asking for is for common sense to be applied.
There is literally zero chance the tank would ever have entered service with no spall liner in the turret. Zero.
If that Russian plane with the IRST gets it, even though it was never fitted, I don’t see the issue with giving the ch3 prototype it’s turret spall liner.
Yeah, I know, I’m following the thread about the Leclerc on this topic. Well, we shouldn’t be fooled about classified information: there are enough sources to prove that, in-game, its turret rotation is way too slow, for example. And then you have to use common sense, I think: a modern MBT with almost no armor is strange. Of course, ‘common sense’ is not proof and shouldn’t be overused, but when you see the state of the Leclerc…]
many thanks GAIJOOBLES, love you long time.
There is no interal D-tech armour…
Most german Leos had a mixed tech armour layout with introduction of 2A5 standard.
Reinforced C-Tech turrets paired with old B-tech hulls.
You can see that when reading the swedish trials document D-1/2/3 are external addon packages.
If the 2A7V got new internal hull armour, then its an upgrade from B-tech to C-tech.
None of the sources used in the bugreport say internal D-Tech, just: replacing the old internal armor.
Since the closest thing to a source we have when it comes to armor is the swedish trials report, i suggest changing 2A7Vs internal armor from B to C Tech with External D, until proven otherwise.
Sadly we wont get. Production turret will be different. This is a Demo and will stay that way, it was not supposed to take part in any battle
so finally, m1a2 sepv2 = same exact protection, was not a joke, and leclerc ignore reports… balance)))))))
Just to clarify, we are not adding the in service Challenger 3 (as it’s not even in service yet). This is spesifcally the demonstratior in its configuration. This is not the tank the British army will be fully adopting into service. That’s why it’s name has been clarified further.
Sorry for bothering, together with Challengers 2 reports, we will have some news about Leopard 2A7V and Leclerc reports?
Maybe change the name to that the Program was originally called. Challenger 2 LEP (Life Extension Program)
Poor Ariete is out of the party again?
I have a question regarding the developers for War Thunder, Since apparently some Gaijin Employees were harassed outside their work environment because some crazy individuals took this game uppdate way too seriously and i think you hopefully know what i mean by that. I am asking and just want to know if the people at Gaijin who were victims of this is doing fine? i am genuinely concerned and ashamed of certain acts done by individuals in this community. Stay Safe o7
Can you also tell me something about leclerc report?
Uhhh, and gajin consider increase to 12.0 or 12.3 BR max for ground vehicle toptier rank 8 this year ?
LEP itslef is still a bit ambiguous as it covers several proposals. Even Black Knight could be considered a LEP.
True… LEP (RH) then? And Black Night to LEP (BAe)
Still under consideration after the report that was submitted.
You are using 1990s early pre-2A5 Leopard trial tests to determine the armor of a next-gen tank that was conceived in 2017 and started being delivered into service in 2019…?
And even then- it already had C-tech hull in the dev server. But its MEXAS add-on armor had worse protection levels than Strv 122’s MEXAS modules for… whatever reason. (0.825 KE vs 1.17 KE)
