Which is… Drumrolls… A renamed ex-Soviet T-72M-1 / T-72M.
‘‘They were considered […]’’
You can’t get any more vague than that. ‘‘Considered’’ By whom? By what definition? You just made that up and pretended that it’s a widely accepted fact.
My previous comment clearly shows it is several generations out of date.
It’s the equivalent of claiming the XM-1 (FSED) firing M728 APDS was the most formidable and modern Abrams variant by 1991.
It’s just utter nonsense.
3BM-9 and 3BM-15 are both very much out-dated designs.
3BM-9 is a steel penetrator that did not utilize dense WA or DU alloys whatsoever, it was entirely ineffective by the composite era.
3BM-15 is simply a tungsten penetrator lodged in a steel penetrator body, again, out-dated design by the early '80s as that is when monobloc tungsten alloy or depleted uranium alloy penetrators were already in-use. That is also the point where Russians themselves were getting 3BM-32 into service.
3BM-32 by the way, was estimated to have the capability of fully overmatching the frontal armour of both the Leopard 2A4 and M1 Abrams at combat distances, whereas 3BM-9 and 3BM-15 are estimated to stand no chance of scoring penetration against those same two tanks at any distance.
I say bm15 is comparable. A “design” might be outdated, but that doesn’t mean it lacks effectiveness. Site facts on all your claims pls instead of just typing your opinions. Sorry about 775 I mistyped.
No source given.
No idea where you got the idea that even a single person on this entire planet ever considered the T-72A equal to a M1A1.
You provided no source for this claim.
No source for this one.
Nope, no source or explaination for that one either.
Yet you’re asking me to source my claims?
Regardless, here’s an overview of the T-72, you can find plenty of information regarding the exact variants and their ammunition here: Tankograd: T-72: Part 1
3BM-15 lacked ‘‘effectiveness’’.
That’s not even up for debate.
Youre just being delusional and lie to yourself to maybe feel good for reasons unknown
Expecially top tier armor its not properly modelled cause they dont have declassified docuements,just stories and countless witnesses but for them aint enough
:Gaijin sees a random missiles that doesnt have documents and was only just a toy at a show case?Add it for russia instantly:
They do, which they have shared, with the community. On multiple occasions. There is exceptional amounts of knowledge on a tank from the late 70’s and early 80’s…
(Yes the Abrams is that old)
Assuming you aren’t just outright dumb, I’m assuming you’re referring to the KH-38MT.
Then remove it? I don’t know what you’d like me to do. Give you a Medal of Honor and shake your hand? I’m sadly not a dev and can’t change that.
(To clarify I’m not trying to be rude, there’s just nothing I can do to fix it)
That is one thing I can’t contest. The System Engancement Package ERA is severely underperforming, especially against Chem, and a good amount to Kinetic.
This is due to the fact gaijin isn’t implementing DU armor. These are the real equivalents to the non-DU turret armor modules.
This is still a large fight on the forum. I used to think it 100% was accurate. Now I believe its armor is indeed lacking, but it can easily still be penetrated by a modern round.
The gun shield of an M1 does not incorporate DU, regardless of what variant.
DU has nothing to do with this issue as DU wasn’t even mounted on the IPM1 at all.
Depleted Uranium (DU) Armor: Starting with the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) variant in 1988, later versions of the Abrams (like the M1A1 and M1A2 series) incorporate depleted uranium (DU) mesh or plates encased in steel within the armor matrix, particularly in the frontal arc of the turret and hull. This material significantly increases the tank’s protection against kinetic energy penetrators.
Protection Levels: The armor is exceptionally effective. Estimates (often given as an equivalent thickness of Rolled Homogeneous Armor, or RHAe) for the frontal protection of the M1A1 with DU armor are around:
600 mm RHAe (or more) against KE rounds.
1,300 mm RHAe (or more) against HEAT rounds.
Ammunition Storage: A key design element for crew safety is the separation of the ammunition from the crew compartment. Most main gun rounds are stored in a heavily armored compartment in the turret bustle with blow-off panels. If the ammunition is struck and ignites, the resulting blast is directed upwards and outwards, away from the crew.
Take the ai slop since i dont wanna type
And btw,the blow up panels i saw, dont even work properly,it kills crew regardless
