I enjoy him saying both the hull has seen no upgrades because of it not being heavier and having received upgrades only for mines and other protection back to back. Schrödinger’s hull.
6 Likes
“The proportions of the hull didn’t change”.
Yeah, I guess they still couldn’t figure any alternative composition to the original 1970s Chobham lmao.
Only way to upgrade the hull would have been to make it thicker, clearly.
12 Likes
as if they didn’t change the turret composition in the M1A1 and the later M1A1/M1A2 variants, they actually did that without changing the armor thickness ingame.
Honestly WTF
5 Likes
just gaijin being intentionally naive as per usual i dont understand why they cant just accept that the US is probably going to use the same material in the hull composite that they do in the turret composite
1 Like
they literally can just link the composite multiplier from the turret cheeks to the entire array, and have an easier time coding, i just don’t understand, this is just them going out of their way for this, like trophy HV and SEP V3 (confirmed new name via accepted bug report) being separate and mostly the same to M1A2 sep
and its not even a crazy ask from us either just want enough protection to not get lol penned by sub top tier rounds below the turret like both the other big 3 mbt’s
I think the M829A3 should have at least 670mm of penetration. As a next-generation APFSDS for the US Army, adding only 5mm of penetration is absolutely ridiculous.
3 Likes
idk if should be that high because as a result gaijin would just buff relikt like they are doing rn but it should def get the around the same as dm53
1 Like
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