So what happened to "We are unable to just rely on primary sources in the reports, since in most cases concerning modern MBT’s, such sources are likely to be classified.Therefore, like the projectile penetration formula, a different approach has been adopted. The protection in an armoured vehicle is a model based on available open information. "?
For the A7vs M1A2SEPs Leclercs and challengers there are so much info provided on a multitude of reports. How did we go from “based on available information” to "we need primary information and no Russian primary sources?
Dude, SEP was reported for the first time with useful data literally this last week.
Leclerc was reported this year with data, specifically the last 3 months.
And Challengers were also a this year item tho I forget when this year.
Patience.
And you expect Russians to be honest about NATO tanks?
Chally was proven to be wrong for years, but there wasn’t data on what to put in the composite instead of what was already there, so the devs can’t really do much.
It’s like someone telling me I’m farming wrong with photographs of higher yields, but not telling me I need to use fertilizer to get those higher yields.
No that’s not what this is about. See Gaijin says they will be evaluating based on “available information”. Now they are asking for specific KE values despite saying they won’t 2 years ago. THAT’s the problem.
They can make an educated guess based on open information. Your analogy is wrong. It’s more like you can’t find peer reviewed documents on how to farm a field, but google gives you a bunch of numbers you can use and they are close enough it doesn’t matter
Actually it would be closer to you not being allowed to know closely guarded fertilizer secret but said secret has been discussed in various agricultural magazines and scientific papers giving rough estimates on what that fertilizer is with available information.
I’m critiquing the report method, not the content of the report.
Proving something is wrong is easy, proving the correct solution is harder; and Gaijin needs the correct solution, or a strong indication of the correct solution.
Well if something is classified, then it’s no-go, right?
If you can’t use primary source, the next closest thing would be something that gives any sort of numerical estimate (since y’know, the real number is classified) through secondary sources.
If numbers are close, then it would be fair to use that “estimated” value of armor thickness in this case.
If numbers are all over the place, well, then and only then should Gaijin say that sources aren’t viable.
A ton of secondary sources, which is what the SEP report that got acknowledged uses.
And if someone ever wants to prove that T-90M’s composite is wrong, they’ll need to do the same.
That’s not true. The M1A2 report that got acknowledged uses a Russian primary source. That is why it got accepted. Look at the previous one, it was closed because we can’t produce values from primary information. Which is not what they promised two years ago.
The problem is not that they require good sources to overturn decisions, but rather than poor initial decisions are made.
If they had taken A7V (or 122B+ for that matter), looked at the progression of armour tech over the past 20 years, and implemented an improvment of 10% or 5% or 30% or whatever, that would be fine. But don’t implement no improvement and only weight gain, and then try to get the users to exactly quantify how much better it is.
We know for a fact that 122B+ is up-armoured. You implementing the exact same protection as 122A is bad and wrong, and now we have to find sekrit dokuments to prove it (we can’t).