I see. At least we finally know now why these reports have kept being rejected all along…
You see, this is a part of the problem. Why has it taken 2 years of spam for us to finally learn why the developers were rejecting the reports? If we had known eaelier, even as soon as they made the decission, we would have known way earlier from which approach to keep working.
And I will just say; the reason of the developers is nonsensical because we DO have that anti-mine protection ingame, on Merkava Mk.4 LIC; and it does not add 15,000 kg… it adds 3,000, as it makes sense;
This kind of stuff is why I am so disappointed and bitter even sometimes.
After 2 years of rejected bug reports, it turns out the developers were rejecting them because they didn’t even know the features of their own game. They didn’t realise, at any point, that this mine protection was ingame and that it didn’t just add 15 tons because it makes no sense for a plate to weigh like a T-50? If we had known this earlier, we would have been able to get to work way earlier.
That would be because this tank, as well as many others ingame already, is fully classified. It was put in service on the mid 2000s and continues to be the workhorse MBT of a military power in 2024; of course we are not going to just find a source stating “it has 550mm KE on the hull and 700mm KE on the turret”.
That’s why many of us believe that, for these cases, Gaijin should be more open to well-educated guesstimates, even if based only on common sense. Because I don’t know what sources exactly they base on to claim that Merkava Mk.4’s armor is barely Leopard 2A4-level; but I think such notion is straight up comical.
For example; without angle, Merkava Mk.4’s 170mm thick UFP provides only 110mm KE, 50 of these being RHA.
That means the 120mm worth of composite provide 60mm KE, which means… the composite has a 0.5 KE multiplier, for… whatever reason. They just deduced the thing’s composite is worse than the first iteration of Chobham (That one was 0.61 ingame?). If I knew how to datamine, I would be able to be more accurate on the multipliers, but you get the idea.
That’s the issue; in order for us to make Merkava Mk.4 not have cardboard armor, we must provide sources specifically stating KE values; meanwhile, it appears the developers can just assume, out of nowhere, that this armor is worse than the very first NATO composite put in service 20 years before this tank was designed.
They know we won’t be having any sources anytime soon, we all know it. In such scenarios, wouldn’t it be better if we could just sit back, think, use common sense and logic, and make well-educated guesstimations that make sense for a present-day MBT instead of always assuming the absolute worst and going for the worst possible values until proven wrong when this could not possibly happen?
And this is part of the problem too. The sources are just rejected even though they literally are:
-IDF officer statements.
-On a video uploaded by the IDF.
-On the official, verified IDF channel.
Just because of the format, and even though the statements correspond to those found in every source on earlier bug reports?
So… you see: the 2022 report was rejected because the developers thought the secondary sources and videos were attributing the extra 15,000kg to a system that weighs 3,000 kg; and, later, they reject another report linked to that one and which has the same figures just because it’s “merely” official IDF statements on the official IDF channel.
At times like this, it just feels like they will find any reason to reject these and do nothing about them.
That being said; the whole point about its weight is to prove that its armor isn’t just cardboard as they seem to believe. If they are going to “fix” the tank by increasing its weight but not its protection because no source just hands them specific values… then it’s better not to even bother. I can already see them making the tank be 80 tons but also with the 10.0-level armor it currently has.
Anyway, thank you for at least stopping by and communicating. As I said above on this comment, lack of transparency and communication regarding the rejection of these reports are a big part of the problem, so I am glad at least you came and bothered to reply and explain.