…
It remained to be done as weight savings were made avalaible
NSIAD-90-57 Abrams Tank: Block II Modifications Not Ready to Enter Production
the Army plans to initially add only portions of the armor packages. Consequently, the program’s survivability objectives may not be achievable. The Army plans to add the remaining portions of the Block II survivability enhancements only as corresponding weight reductions are achieved.
And guess what.
Weight saving suspiciously materialized
didnt they also save two tonnes on cabling by switching to fibre optic or smthn
Look at table 2.1 on page 38
The Army plans to add portions of planned Block II armor on a trade-off basis as planned weight savings are achieved. However, most of the Army’s planned weight reductions are scheduled for development and are not expected to be realized until after the start of MlA2 production.
They increased the CV90120-T’s weight by 7t and gave it nothing in return.
The sole upgrade to previous 28t configuration was the engine (a whopping +50kW)
Also seemingly people fail to understand that estimations gaijin makes for implementation are not subject to reporting without providing sources proving that said estimations are wrong and what the true value should be instead.
I have read the sources used in a bunch of the reports made and none of them have made me believe that any of gaijin-staff responses were unreasonable or unjustified in any way shape or form.
They said explicitly what was missing and why the reports couldnt be forwarded.
I think that what we are doing right now, i.e. coping about gaijin not giving preferentrial treatment, gets us absolutely nowhere.
Our efforts should, in any case, be focused on finding and then providing sources that actually suffice to get a report forwarded as suggestion.
do you not understand that there are no sources for the protection?
Feel free to try if you want;
Okay so a weight increase tells you exactly by how much armour was improved or what?
Again, gaijin staff has already said, several times, that they acknowledge that the hull armour was improved but that they lack information regarding which part - and by how much said part(s) was improved.
Can this really be so difficult to understand?
In before op is banned from the forums.
Thats incorrect.
The Leopard 2A5 uses the C Armor Package while the Leopard 2A7V uses the D Armor Package so thats already incorrect there that it has the same armor as the 2A5.
Even the C Armor tested in the swedish Trials doesnt even reflect what we have ingame.
There is even an Entire Report made to improve the armor but it was denied since it wasnt believed that the armor could be this strong. (No im not kidding)
Leopard 2A7V: hull armour.
And they are unwilling to guess or provide a token improvement based on the weight change why?
Okay so why do you expect them to accept reports on protection without sources for said protection?
YES IT CAN GIVE YOU A ROUGH IDEA.
When you know the weight increase is due to armor between the v2 and v3, it becomes quite easy to calculate how much more heavy material was added to the armor. ESPECIALLY since the turret addon is visible and thus extremely easy to calculate in volume-weight.
Material weight density is known for steel, DU, titanium, and so on. This is easy information they can use to get an estimation without needing classified armor value.
Right back at you, can this really be so difficult to understand? If basic concepts of volume and material density are really too complex for you, you probably shouldn’t be in this thread critizing the bug reports, no offense.
I never said otherwise- I said that, if GAIJIN had used the same logic on 2A7V as they are using on SEPv3, it would have had the same armor as 2A5.
But please, let’s stop making these Abrams threads about the Leopards.
Ah, okay then! They KNOW it was improved, and yet, instead of taking a shot with the countless available sources, they consider it better to give it no upgrade AT ALL…?
because they literally do it all the time, they do not (or cannot legally) know the protection of literally any high tier mbt lol. like the 2a5 improvement in hull armour over the 2a4, the leo2a7v improvement over the 2a5 and 2a6, the improvment in protection for the t-80bvm, the improvement of the challenger 3 and 2 etc. this is just a double standard for united states tanks lo. keep coping buddy.
Ok I got it
US general army military law states :
“a covered system may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until realistic
survivability testing of the system is completed in accordance with this section and the
report required by subsection (d) with respect
to that testing is submitted in accordance
with that subsection”
This is a pre production M1 sepV3 during live fire testing
Why would they slap the steel plates on it if not to simulate the add on armor !!
Before it enter production
This proves the armor is there
Can we really call them estimates though? At this point their estimates make so little sense mathmatically and logic wise that we should probably start calling them fantasies.
And this only further proves my point. They are implementing their own fantasies disguised as “guesstimates”
There isn’t any short of classified documents.
That raises the next question. Why even bother adding the SEPv3 if they plan to make it the worst 12.7 Abrams to begin with. Why not just add the SEPv2 trophy with M829A3 and call it a day?
I know Gaijin devs can be incredibly delusional, but they aren’t delusional enough to think that their interpretation of the SEPv3 will actually be better than the SEPv1 right? (Well they do think the J-15T is 14.7 worthy so maybe they are that delusional.)
it’s the same thing with the Namers, they weight as much as Merk4s without the turret but categorically miss even more armor, accordingly, then i should just accept it
yeah, so basically according the gaijin, every sep, is literally just an incremental weight increase of the sepv1 basically just making it slower and worse lmao…
If the estimations are wrong and you can prove they are wrong (and what they should be instead) through sources, then you can report it.
If you cant prove that they’re wrong / what they should be instead, then reports will be rejected.
In other news, fork found in kitchen.
There are countless of sources on virtually every tank that give you something more than a vague “is better”
Two secondary sources suffice for bug-reports, you dont even need a primary.
Claiming that anything related is classified is just the biggest strawman that people are throwing here.
They, just as we, cannot know everything. They will be wrong, just as we will be wrong - and they will likely be wrong more often than “we” are (because someone, somewhere will always happen to have the most random OEM brochure that nobody knew existed beforehand).
When both parties agree that a statement is wrong, then the goal should not be to throw crap at each other for being wrong but finding out what is correct.
Yet as of now, what we are doing is not the latter - and instead the former in combination with repeating the sources that do not give us the correct value we are looking for but those that were able to disprove the previous theory.
