Abrams frontal armor

The Abrams sep2 or a2 variant both should have impenetrable cheeks against kinetic and the front of the hull should have higher armor protection ratings.

I spend a fortune on this game because I really enjoy it. I honestly don’t mind the overly armored Russian tanks but at-least increase the DU armor protected areas on the Abrams to a point of needing to be extremely close to pen.

The Abrams already has a massive weak point between the turret and DU protected hull where the drivers port is located to keep the balance in check.

Just please give us the DU armor!!

It would be more realistic and shut us Americans up.

13 Likes

M1A2 frontal hull armour is fine, Sweden trials shown protection there was much lower than in turret. IDK about cheeks but IIRC they are impenetratable as they should be. DU armour in SepVs are a thing of time IMO.

2 Likes

Sweden trialed the abrams along with the leo-2, leclerc, and t-80U

1 Like

Jesus christ not another one of these posts.

No KE shot in the game is capable of penetrating the turret cheeks of the Abrams, with the earliest vehicle being penned being the M1A1 and its HAP-1.

The hull armor has already been passed

It has nothing to do with balance, it’s entirely due to a lack of information regarding the protection of the Abrams.

You already have 2 generations of it, the third is under development. Calm down and take a number.

5 Likes

will the hull armor be fixed for the M1A1 AIM? the reg M1A1 has bad composite in the hull and turret but the later one upgraded that and that would also go for the M1A1 AIM becasue it has the stronger turret armor so now they just need fix the hull.

3 Likes

Imagine who a what?

Nobody’s applying it to the SEP models, the topic of Swedish trials is of the M1A2 and HAP-2. Re-read if you need to, I understand that some people may be a little slow.

Yes, and that’s why they’re currently developing a better model for HAP-3. How many times do I have to tell you people this?

Beautiful whataboutism, too bad it has no context or bearing here.

1 Like

Imagine thinking that the vulnerabilities of the tank in WT are reflective of real life!

1 Like

There was confliction as to whether or not AIM or HC variants used HAP-2 in the hull or not, and given that the statements on the armor of the HAP series are so vauge… It’s pretty hard to tell what it should be.
I’ll check through the submissions and see if it mentions anything.

Im pretty sure the M1A1 AIM the AU one was refit with the DU equivalent in the Hull and turret to be on par with the M1A2
IMG_4859

6 Likes

Thats how T-80U armour and performance of K-5 is estimated in game lol.

Go read bug report rules for once to see it counts as secondary rules for everyone.

interesting, thanks

1 Like

Me and another longtime player created a discord to try to get stuff like this fixed.

Here’s a link if you’re interested. WT-USA Research Group

1 Like

what about the T-80U and k5? K-5 itself is doing what it was made to do, its just over performing to rounds and atgm like the tow 2 B, DM53, M829A2, when it shouldn’t have any effect on against them at all. I don’t know what fantasy land gaijin is living in, but the T80’s, T-90’s survive rounds from any thing from the M829A2 and above anywhere.

M829A2
After all IIRC M829A3 was made to make sure thwy actually penetrate K-5.
I think I had simulation for DM-53, but I cant access the game RN so wont paste it now as I want to be sure.

yeah and so was M829A2

Except M829A2 failed at that, you can even see it in the test.T-80U UFP armour is worse than on T-72B3/1989.

In the old forum there are bug report that question M1A2 armor from Sweden trials as US had restrict DU export rule.
Found it

from
Fwd: Dec/11/2019 M1A2 Abrams Turret Armor - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum

1 Like

The turret cheeks on my sep 2 have been pen’d multiple times by challengers or leopards(can’t remember which one) and many times by Russian vehicles

1 Like

lmfao, you realize the russians even knew that M829A2 Could penetrate K5 right?