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
2 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.
3 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.
2 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.
2 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?
I did not know that they said anything about intentionally leaving it out. (might have missed it)
Still bs tho, even stuff properly and clearly stated by the manufacturer to exist and gaijin doesnt include it, for what? balance? then why is there 2 t72 with arena and soon 1 t90m?
1 Like
I’ve seen bug reports of SepV3 which was pointed out it had Trophy, but it’s been labled with “Not a Bug”
And one of the Moderators did respond saying, the M1A2 SepV3 also came without the Trophy system
I’d have to look through the issues page to reference
because they want to add it later as another tank you will have to grind for
Here is one as an example, Community Bug Reporting System
I think you should make a forum to advocate for the additon of the Trophy System
bruh, same story as the gripen e and its missing extended wings, just because there was a version without it they chose to add that one and not the best performing one. Its just so unfair from the devs, as soon as there is “a version” of a tank or a plane that is slightly worse, they add that for nato. But for example the yak 141, is a mock up of different prototypes with different things unique to them all mixed together. The double standards are just silly.
yeah probably
F15e with the PD radar over aesa 💔
1 Like
I’ve really just learned to associate with Gaijin a lot less.
They lack communication, or what I assume don’t want to communicate.
Anyways back on topic