Could you also link me the bug report that used the math to try to calculate the improved armor thickness based on the weights added to the hull? Im very interested in it and i would love to read what gaijin wrote on the report
Which in my opinion it would be nice to see Spall vests added to the vehicles that actively operate them to try to increase survivability a little bit as well.
1 Like
Y’all need to accept that change only happens for non russian countries if the community unites again.
It is literally the only way.
2 Likes
Change happens for non russian countries all of the time. Can we not beat the russian bias dead horse for a bit.
List the last time a non russian tank got an actual buff that didnt get taken off a week later
Unfinished Draft - Awaiting Finalized Review.zip (308.4 KB)
We have added a new source which provides precentage values to assit Gaijin in seeing the weight difference to additonal Armor
The source us provided under: 2. Baseline M1A2 Armor Breakdown (Source Document Ratios)
15 Likes
Seen the BS they came up with for the CR2 trunnion as well?
They’re now just haphazardly denying pretty much any and all reports.
They really forget about this didn’t they.
So now what do they do?
We can’t get specific classified information, we give them documents which state 35 % increase, so why not use the swedish trials and then a 35% increase from that and call it a day?
They just don’t want to bother doing basically anything which isn’t paying lip service to problems.
1 Like
Because this patch they’ve what?
- Added a yugo plane to the russian tree when it’s zero to do with russia. Which I need not say is out of order.
- They’ve buffed then nerfed the CR2 and Completely denied how a trunion works in a tank to keep it nerfed.
- Once again Buffed russian equipment, as well as nerfed the BMPT, unerfed it and renerfed it again.
- this tread and the M1A2C treatment aka the rejected bug reports is the more telling out of it all
- turret baskets for CR2s when they have been proven time and time again to not have them.
- as well as turret baskets for the Merkavas -
- No turret baskets conviently for the russian MBTS or chinese MBTS.
And that is just so far what we’ve seen. Oh yeah the M829A3 being funky as well.
It’s quite fishy how all of this is going on now. I seriously have no idea what changed after the LMUR patch they just went full ham with the buffing of soviet / russian kit and bugger to the rest.
6 Likes
Nuclear bomb of a bug report, best of luck!
3 Likes
Declasified “in part”
Mate, good luck with that, seriously I’ve read over it, there’s pretty much undeniable proof for what they’ve stated in 2021 to get a rework of the armour effectiveness.
hope it goes through
5 Likes
Basically yeah. Also the mile long lsit of stuff for the challenger, merkava, etc.
Like they give random buffs to russia but then refuse to do stuff theyve accepted for 2+ years that wouldnt take a week to fix.
The community needs to make a statement.
well, there is a chance it will be refused because they are asking what exactly changed in the hull to provide better protection, and thats information we dont know for obvious reasons…
maybe you could propose that, if gaijin acknowledges that the hull has better armor (which is what youre proving) but cannot implement it because nobody knows what was changed internally (internal layout, armor values, etc.), then they should reconsider the weight increase. as it stands in WT, the additional armor is not modeled, so the extra weight is effectively being applied without the corresponding protection benefit.
5 Likes
This is an excellent argument tbf. It doesn’t collide with the turret cheek improvements and it won’t end up as double punishment (same hull armor at a worse power-to-weight ratio).
1 Like
I dont know why youre roping the chinese mbts into this theyre pretty dogwater and 99% of the china players ive interacted with complain about them getting the short end of the stick
And i dont know what turret basket you want them to give russian tanks as they physically dont have them and the carousel spins independently from the turret
I think there should be more of a push to fix the C2 turret basket and every other tank with them instead of arbitrarily nerfing frankly already mid vehicles for the sake of it, and this also goes for the chally 2 and merkava
Usually not one to agree man with us all needing to band together, but this time yeah it’s needed. this is ridiculous.
3 Likes
They’re far from dogwater mate, they, like most other nations tanks, have a plethora of bug repots.
Teh fact of the matter is their Autoloaders are apart of the turret basket is not my issue.
Nor does challanger 2 but it’s being modelled.
Also does the auto loader not turn with the crew seats which are bolted to the ring.
We’re way, way past that but aren’t we, now it’s at the stage that there are only two types of tanks without baskets.
Which is BS.
No the autoloader doesnt turn with the crew seats, the carousel is entirely independent from the turret with the only stationary part being the floor above it. Which i mean, they could model the floor as a turret basket but i dont see the point. I dont see the point of doing it to the challenger 2 either since the turntable under the turret isnt connected to it either.
so m1a2 sepv3 should have trophy active protection system, would general dynamics own website be enough evidence or not enough you guys think?
Im pretty certain this is their official website for ground vehicles: ABRAMS - General Dynamics Land Systems
Text clearly states Sepv3 is equipped with trophy active protection system.
6 Likes
Correct me if I am wrong, even if the SepV3 did have Trophy,
Didn’t Gaijin make the concious choice to not at the SepV3 with the Trophy System?
1 Like