Why can't NATO have a well armored MBT?

Why are all NATO tanks such paper (well, Strv 122 is an exception)? When we compare the armor of top BR russian tanks to let’s say Abrams or Challenger, NATO tanks’s armor is laughable at best. Even the new Leopard 2 PSO and Leclerc Azur additional armor is dogshit and literally doesn’t matter. It’s ridiculous to the point that You have to aim at an exact spot to penetrate a T-80 or T-72 but they can shot pretty much anywhere but turret cheeks and You’re dead.

I don’t know if it’s the only reason but it seems that NATO players perform much worse than russian/chinese teams.

17 Likes

Because most of them resign to a loss before the match even begins

4 Likes

Lol true to some extent but…pretty sure most good players dont purposely handicap themselves

They do. M1A2, Leopard 2A5.
They’re not as armored as Strv 122, but they’re as armored as BVM.
BVM having a lolpenned turret while strong hull.
While M1A2 & Leopard 2A5 have strong turrets and a lolpen hull.

5 Likes

Is this lolpen turret in the room with us?

BVM weak points are basically the same as Strv122, except the entire tank is 2/3 the size and is a volumetric+ERA black hole.

21 Likes

The arrogant Gaijin likes to torture players like this

1 Like

I bet it likely comes down to they are out of vehicles to over tier.

You see, in the past they could take 2019, 2020, 2024 etc modified tanks and bring them into play and tier them against older vehicles from other nations. Now they are stuck. Unless they start implement russian fantasy napkin vehicles they have no choice but to add more advanced NATO vehicles.

This leaves them in a bind. Because they either have to admit they over powered their own vehicles. Or they keep up the B.S. facade and they keep giving russian vehicles science fiction stats and powers. In which case their obvious bias just becomes blatant nonsense (even more so than it is).

They are very likely in no rush to disturb the win rates of the russian tech tree. Otherwise they would have released balanced tanks across the board instead of "oh here you go, but HERE WE GO with (insert X over powered vehicle to keep russia on top)).

7 Likes

Wow, armor kits, that were specially invented to protect MBTs from infantry AT weapons in urban warfare isnt providing protection against kinetic rounds… Who could think about it?

2 Likes

Armor isn’t modelled correctly for most western tanks.
If you do even 10 minutes of your own research you will see.

All the sources that Gaijin would accept in order to change the armor are classified so instead they just do nothing.

2 Likes

So as for any modern tank.

1 Like

Seems very convenient for russian players. It is just one B.S. excuse after another with them. They could model it closer to reality instead of the crap we have now.

But that would be expecting quality, and honesty… And well… yeah won’t happen.

4 Likes

So… How it should be in reality?

1 Like

Proper ammunition, proper automatic extinguishing systems, proper spall liners, proper acceleration, ERA and NERA missing on some vehicles. How about G limiters on russian aircraft. The Mig 29 right now is pulling far more G’s than it should without ripping its wings. With the 50% modifier it should rip its wings at 7Gs with a fuel pod.

Fixing russian ERA over functioning, fixing russian cast armor over performing, fixing russian shells over performing. All things I have provided documentation, sometimes IN RUSSIAN from their own sources that just gets ignored.

2 Likes

No, currently In game, only Russian and some chinese composites are modeled as multi-layered, meaning the round has a much higher chance of geting Gaijin’d and dissapearing into the void. Most all NATO composites are modeled as a single giant block of armor, rather than the multiple layers of high hardness steel/titanium with a expanding polycarbonate inbetween

2 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes

Maybe, havent experienced that.

There are a lot of funky interactions between a round and multiple layers of armor in game, its why ERA has a very common habit of just absorbing an entire round and not penning any further

In my experience it happens to anything that shoots at sides. Like, even my type 10 magically ate rounds with its side.

…because there are multiple layers of armor on the side, like I said

Many of the kinetic rounds are not perforating correctly.

H.E. doesn’t work at all, and if modeled correctly would be devastating to russian cast armor vehicles. IS-6, IS-6, T55, o279, 906… All would be effected. Goes for HESH as well. Cast armor on russian vehicles is 20% less effective than rolled armor and SHOULD DEGRADE with every hit. Even from a .50cal it should degrade. But nope, its magical.

This is also incorrect some russian vehicles have it. o279 for instance has it.

They should work. Right now they are non existant in NATO tanks. With their large volume and internal spacing coupled with spall liners russian tanks should have to pick the crew apart.

The lists are in the forums and bug reports, not even going to mention the more than a dozen.

We do, I can rip the wings on my F14. I have even ripped the wings on my F16 before. My Mig has never ripped its wings, even when I pulled absolute ridiculous Gs at over Mach 1. Its fine. I don’t think you actually rip its wings.

All of it, but especially the T-80BVM. It is far more survivable than it should be. 1st gen anti-era rounds punch right through it IRL. In game it eats everything far beyond what it should. This is well documented, and well talked about. Multiple bug reports but they ignore us because they know we are right but are too proud to admit they are wrong.

Actually pretty far down in the tiers as well. I know it has been brought up and pointed out that even their T34 shells are over performing. But all of their APDS and APFSDS shells are over performing. Even their APCBC and BR482. I know I and others have pointed this out multiple times. But again, they refuse to address it.

3 Likes