Doesnt it pretty much get the same as the DM53 when fired from the L44 and only the L55 is higher?
did they even give dm53 its anti era this update or does it still function the same
Lmao no. Lets talk about the state of Germany - #7855 by AspectOfTheRAGE
Classic “not enough info” with a bit of purposeful misinterpretation sprinkled in.
and with that it also answers that l27a1 didnt get it either
What i personally assume they mean when they answer like that is:
-What part of the armor (sides? front? back? top? turret only? hull only? only inserts? bulk material? ).
-Against what threats ( only KE? only CE? explosive pressure? a combo of the three? ).
-In what way (increased over all effective armor thickness? reduced spalling? multi hit capabilities?)
If the info is to vague then there is nothing concrete to act on. I think (almost) everyone agrees that the have been improvements, the harder part is going to prove how, where, in what way and against what.
At the very least in a way where the developers get something they can actually work with and know what part of the tank that needs changes against what threats.
But then as with any modern vehicle i sadly think we’re going to have to live with incorrect implementations for practically all vehicles in some form or another no matter what information anyone finds that is public as it will most definitely not be the same numbers as the actual classified ones, be that to much or to little. They are likely going to make estimates either way ( [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder ).
As a side note, if you think a bug report has been handled incorrectly you can always ask for a second opinion using the report function on the bug report site:
1 Like
I thought there was a side by side picture of the SEPv2 and SEPv3 showing that both the hull and turret had changed proportions? Maybe I’m thinking of something else?
1 Like
Meanwhile Leopard family:
Getting internal armor upgrade while not recieving any external dimension changes, result: increased protection.
4 Likes
I agree, but they’ll never be able to get exact numbers, and the same goes for most of the modern vehicles we have.
The developers simply don’t want to include the Abrams’ hull upgrades in the game.
Let’s not pretend this game is some kind of simulator - because it isn’t.
It’s just a lack of good will. That’s all, and the players are well aware of it.
6 Likes
It appears that the ONLY source Gaijin is EVER willing to accept for ANYTHING in the universe is those damn 1990s Swedish Trials.
At this point, those damn trials have become a curse to the game. It’s the ONLY source upon which they model the Leclercs, Abrams and Leopards- even variants that are over 20 years more modern and advanced. To them, the Swedish Trials are the Word of God Himself and nothing else matters at all.
15 Likes
May be silly to ask at this point, but context for what those trials were? Curious as I’m more of a plane guy myself.
Basically, in the 1990s, Sweden was looking for a new MBT. The contenders included:
-An early iteration of what would eventually become the Leopard 2A5, including add-on armor packages trialed on the Leopard 2 TVM that later evolved into those used on the Strv 122 and other up-armored Leopard variants.
-A pre-production, immature Leclerc prototype.
-An export version of the baseline M1A2.
Because it is one of the few publicly available sources containing concrete figures, Gaijin treats the Swedish trials as though they were the Bible and has modeled every vehicle around them. This works reasonably well for vehicles from the 1990s and early 2000s, but it becomes a serious problem when dealing with vehicles from the 2010s and 2020s, because real-world armor technology did not remain frozen in time for three decades.
You can provide Gaijin with fifteen different sources discussing the M1A2 SEPv3’s improved hull armor, but because no specific protection values are publicly available (which is hardly surprising for a modern tank currently in service) they refuse to even attempt an estimate and instead leave the armor effectively unchanged from the early-1990s variant.
At this point, Gaijin is treating an outdated source as though it were still representative of present-day technology.
This is also why the Leopard 2A7V’s armor in-game is effectively derived from a 1990s Leopard 2 TVM prototype. Gaijin only increased the protection by the amount attributable to the visible add-on armor package while ignoring the entirely new internal armor composition fitted to the vehicle. And because there are no publicly available numbers for that internal composition… well, you already know the story.
The same logic explains why they only increased the SEPv3’s turret protection. The turret is visibly thicker, so they cannot reasonably deny that changes were made. The hull, however, is not visibly thicker, so they leave it untouched, as though internal armor upgrades were some kind of alien concept.
15 Likes
evidence of gaijin changing turret on M1A1 /M1A1 HC
no hull increase, both have same thickness, different KE multiplier, same M829A1, why not to the hull? roughly same 40-42 degree angle
1 Like
Sorry for spam but M1A2C turret stuff - the tank only has the 150mm ballast boost
1-2 img is same Sabot
3-4 img is same HEAT
all armor upgrade is congruent with the 150mm plate, no upgraded composite
2 Likes
I see that talking here won’t change anything. As someone who just started playing, I thought this game was fair and equal for everyone, but there’s a Russian bias in the game, and they’ve made their vehicles more durable than others. As someone who started playing and invested a lot of money, I stopped donating when I saw things like this. I play Germany, and I see how the new generation tank like the 2A7V has been weakened. You can only see it yourselves. When there are issues with armor or modifications, Russian players always consider themselves the best players, saying it’s a matter of skill, but what makes them durable is the game’s mechanics; they’ve made their tanks durable. Even the 2A7V tank wasn’t new; they applied it to an old model and nerfed some things. This happened because of complaints from Russian players. So even if they make new armored vehicles like the 2a8 or the upcoming Sepv3 Russian tanks for you and us tomorrow, they’ll still nerf them due to the whining of some players who say it’s a skill issue, just like when the 2a7v came out.
5 Likes
The most specific you can get on open source is the budget documentation which states “turret and hull armor upgrades”. That’s separate from the mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, and lightweight belly armor also mentioned, so it’s clearly referring to the base armor.
Since mine blast improvements is a separate mention, the hull armor upgrades are not focused on blast pressure and therefore must be direct fire threats. As for location of the upgrade, well it’s clearly not the hull sides, rear, or top RHA plates being thickened as SEPv3s are built off M1A1 base hulls (and you can use the sniff test on hull production photos and see they are no increases in thickness).
There’s only one place on hull where there is composite with an internal upgrade package and that’s the LFP.
Now of course, there are no numbers or specific threats. And you won’t get that because that’s legitimately classified (no not just CUI like the TMs everyone in the forums freaks out about but actually secret). So if the developers need RHAe values, then everything starts and stops at the Swedish tank trials. Something which is now over 30 years out of date. If that’s the standard so be it….
….however that’s clearly not the standard. We have armor values in game for Merkava 4’s, the Type 10’s, late model Chinese tanks, but I’ve never seen any official source list specifically the protection in RHAe for any of these vehicles. Hell, even the new welded turrets for the T-90A and the later T-90M. Or the composite used in the “turret” of the BMPT? Where is the official primary source for the RHAe of those?
And one final most damning example, is that on the same vehicle in question here (SEPv3), the developers made a complete guess on what the “turret” part of “turret and hull armor upgrades” means for the tank in game.
The developers very clearly guesstimate all the time and I think generally the player base accepts that, even if they don’t agree with the final specific number. What is extremely irritating is the double standard. Some vehicles get completed guesstimated armor (that is questionably balanced) without any source and then you get the current situation where a main tree’s ultimate MBT doesn’t get the main upgrade that makes it better because the player base doesn’t have classified documents.
26 Likes
That’s my whole point is if they made a number from some sort of document for the turret, there HAS to be a paper trail, and if the numbers are obviously stated (as they “were” in the previous documentation used to justify current numbers on the SEPv2 and older) than there has to be a number figure or documentation to prove that for the SEPv3 as well, and as of yet where is that documentation? And to get an objective answer, a mod that deals with these kind documents a lot (Gunjob, etc) could pull these things up
5 Likes
I think it is more of “if something working then don’t touch it”, they see Abrams performing well, so they consider A3 gonna be enough for new abrams tanks
For other MBTs they needed at least create some sort of “shape” for gameplay, abrams already has this “shape” performing and they don’t want touch it more than needed
Hi guys, in fact, we have overlooked an important point, which is the new ammunition M829A3. Despite its projectile length being over 100mm longer than the M829A2, its penetration depth has only increased by 4mm. Although it has a new ERA mechanism, a penetration depth of just 633mm is not sufficient to reliably penetrate a contact 5 tank. More importantly, its speed is only 1555m/s, meaning its ballistic drop over long distances will be very significant, which is very unfavourable for long-range combat. This is quite a downgrade, so in many cases the M829A3 performs worse than the M829A2. This is a typical case of apparent improvement but actual decline. The M829A3 is one of the most powerful anti-tank munitions in service, and all analyses suggest it should outperform the existing DM53 in the game, but its penetration of 633mm is even much weaker than the DM53, which is ridiculous. We should ask the developers to remaster the M829A3 to match its real-world penetration.
6 Likes
I mean I’m not a marketing expert, but adding a new highly requested MBT and instantly making it redundant doesn’t seem like a good strategy to gain hype.
It doesn’t need to be overpowered, but it should at least have a reason to exist for there to be hype about it.
7 Likes