I have largely refrained from commenting before hearing the other side, but as report rejections continue to accumulate, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the current standards for historical reports benefit some nations more than others.
Western defense industries are neither obligated nor inclined to publicly disclose the detailed specifications of their equipment. In many cases, they are legally and contractually required to withhold sensitive information, for obvious reasons, making critical military data readily available to potential adversaries would be counterproductive to national security interests.
By contrast, other nations are often far more willing to publicly advertise the capabilities of their military technology, whether through official disclosures, state media, or promotional material. This is where the standards become inherently biased. If one nation chooses to keep technical details classified, its equipment ultimately risks being represented with inferior performance due to a lack of publicly available evidence. Meanwhile, nations that openly promote or even exaggerate their capabilities are rewarded with superior in-game performance based on claims that cannot always be independently verified.
That is neither a fair nor a consistent standard.
We are discussing military equipment that remains in active service today. These are vehicles whose most important technical characteristics are still classified. It is unreasonable to demand the same evidentiary standard for a modern main battle tank as for a vehicle that has been retired for forty years and thoroughly documented through declassification.
The Abrams, fortunately, possesses a number of strengths that help compensate for uncertainties surrounding aspects of its protection. Other nations are not so fortunate. Several modern vehicles suffer from frontal protection levels that are simply uncompetitive within the current game meta, for instance there are now four iterations of the Leclerc in-game that struggle against some early-generation 105mm APFSDS rounds despite increases in vehicle weight over time, with little evidence of corresponding improvements to protection. Similar examples can be found elsewhere. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence within the classified context of things.
The reality is that documentation for many of these vehicles will remain classified for decades. Yet Gaijin increasingly positions itself as the ultimate arbiter of historical accuracy and realism while giving insufficient consideration and transparency to gameplay balance when hard evidence is unattainable. In cases where definitive information does not and cannot exist in the public domain, balance should play a greater role in decision-making rather than defaulting to assumptions that disproportionately disadvantage certain nations.
M1A2 SEPv3 is getting screwed here, but Leclerc and Merkava Mk.4 are truly getting the short end of the stick.
Also- not even HARD numbers is enough. A report showing that the Abrams should have improved turret CE armor by 250% from SEP onwards was “accepted” long ago, yet NOTHING has been done about it.
Yeah. At this point, the “accepted” limbo is almost worse than straight up rejection- see M735, Type 10’s steering, CR2’s missing LFP spall liners, etc.
M1A2 SEPv3 is just YET ANOTHER victim of absurd bug reporting criteria requirements, but far from the only one.
If gaijin had a say in it, they leave a gap in america’s AA tree from 9.0 to 11.7, thinking that aim 9’s and fims + a roland is comparable to a strela, osa, 2s6.
The issue really is the company and what they considered needed or not, it has been proven over and over, you can bend over backwards and make a marble statue of the gaijin snail, providing evidence or just stating that it isn’t balanced and vehicles need to be added/adjusted. A gaijin empolye, Gaijin “bug moderator” or whoever makes the end result on the side of gaming for, will flat out after all of it say “it is a balance reason why it is like that”…
They simply don’t care and everything has to be given “careful consideration”, for vehicles to be fixed even after YEARS of reporting it is wrong, just like that one apfsds round that was nerfed and never actually “fixed” years down the road.
I would love to see m1a2 sepv3 to have the proper armor estimations instead of nothing, but the issue is deeper than just pure blinding “i can’t do it ism”.
Gaijin just needs to loosen up the source requirements for modern things. China also suffers particularly bad from this because manufacturers release almost zero info, instead relying on their info going through secondary sources first.
If no exact data for an armour upgrade is available, just make an educated guess that it would be increased from 10-20%, or increased within reason/balance.
If there is an X% increase or similar available, then that value should be taken and implemented provided the source isn’t complete BS.
I agree with u, Gaijin’s strict source requirements for modern vehicles make no sense, especially for nations like China where manufacturers release zero public data.But relying on educated guesses and percentage adjustments based on secondary sources is the only logical way to balance the game.
After all, Gaijin legally cannot use real classified data anyway until they are allowed. If they ever officially integrated restricted documents leaked on the forums into the game, international intelligence and defense agencies would completely shut them down.
Observing hysteria around abrams hull makes me wonder: what exactly people want in-game from upgraded hull? Better LFP? I saw photos and most of them focuse LFP