Indeed. As explained in the answer there, sadly there was not a sufficient amount of information to make any changes to the protection.
As mentioned above, reports and sources are welcome that show a clear tangible discrepancy to work with.
There is no “deflection” here. Simply trying to assist on the proper means of how this can be raised and reported.
The dev blog is discussing the vehicle as it is modelled in game. If you wish to report something with that, it must be done via what is in game, not simply the wording of a dev blog and with evidence to show exactly what is incorrect.
We have done this in the past for a couple of tanks. It’s incrediblly time consuming for the developers to formulate such information into a suitable and digestible size for blogs with all the relivant information and the reaction to said blogs was not really showing it was a worthwhile or justified thing to do.
It’s also sadly simply not practical to make a new dev blog detailing every source used on the protection or discussed feature every time there is a question of disagreement with how it’s modeled in game. Sadly it would simply be asked / expected of practically every major vehicle in game. Which as you can imagine, is not a practical thing to do.
I mean, I would say there’s a clear view of something being incorrect when a +250mm LOS, 140mm thick, 5.5 ton composite block stated to be designed against KE threats adds only 10mm KE somehow…
See, this is where I think well educated guesstimates and reasonable logic should take over the obsession for “sources”.
And what sources did the devs use for the current modelling? Sources so good that they can’t be overridden with anything short of a manual?
Which source on this planet could possibly suggest that this composite armor should be several orders of magnitude weaker than literal rubber, and barely, hardly more effective than AIR…?
Why do we need official documentation to deal with a matter that should reasonably only require a slight bit of logic and common sense?
I understand that it is simply impractical to do it for everything issue however the Ariete’s armor has been a topic of back and forth for years now without any action or even an explanation being given.
Well, multiple sources stating that WAR was designed to withstand KE threats should be enough for the developers to know that the “it improves CE protection” statement is just plain wrong.
Sure, we don’t have specific values- that’s what happens when we work with present-day classified vehicles and it should be expected and acted upon.
And that’s when I ask… can’t we just make well-educated guesstimations?
Can’t they realise 5.5 tons of +250mm LOS worth of kinetic armor providing barely 10mm KE is just comically absurd?
The 10mm KE figure is already a guesstimation- just an absurd one. It shouldn’t require solid sources with values to be overridden- only a more reasonable guesstimation.
Wouldn’t a logical estimation be more reasonable than this?
Literally any guesstimated value would be better for historical reasons and gameplay reasons. There’s no reason why WAR should be modelled as it is now.
the sad part is that if the historical consultant did his job when first having the tank introduced, we wouldn’t have to be going through all of this. Anything added to the game already needs so much to be fixed
I believe this one is on the tanks protection in general. Not the WAR kit spesifcally. I do not see one currently open on the WAR kit. (Unless I’m missing it or it was submitted in Russian by their community)
the report include the WAR kit whit it, it is not spesifcally but the report does include the issue with the protection of WAR kit
quote from the report
