Abrams round inaccurate

I’ve now asked you two times.
You’re still not showing me what I asked you to show me.

I’ll be as direct as I can:

  • You claim Abrams ammunition isn’t accurate, and you cite Steel Beasts as a source.
  • Someone rightfully tells you Steel Beasts isn’t a valid source.
  • You then show us that the Steel Beasts website has a source of it’s own which validates what Steel Beasts claims.
  • I then ask you to show where in that source the penetration values that Steel Beasts lists are mentioned.

You refuse to comply.

Nowhere on that page does it cite penetration values.

3 Likes

Apparently you don’t;

  1. 220mm/71.12°=679.9

Simple.

2 Likes

brain stem controls basic functioning like breathing and heartbeat, as well as basic motor, it would be more apt to say you have a functioning prefrontal cortex, for higher reasoning

1 Like

Isn’t he saying that the penetration should be 680mm at 0° instead of 680mm LoS @ 71° though?

1 Like

thats why hes correcting him?

That’s why I’m correcting him? Unless you’d rather believe that the Chinese managed to produce an APFSDS that’s better than DM53/L55 while being nearly 100mm shorter, your choice.

I’m curious as to why people still keep repeating the “ooga booga 680mm/flat” when the perforation perfectly matches the LoS/71.12 results…

2 Likes

Hey, don’t look at me, I have no clue about anything related to the subject of Chinese APFSDS.

I just thought there was some confusion by one person talking about flat pen and the other talking about LoS pen.

The brain stem is also what holds the entire thing in place, so I was alluding to me actually having a brain at all.
But you’re not wrong.

No. There says 220mm at 71.12° (equivalent 680 at 0°).
If you have full version just look slightly left from 680 at 0°.

It does say 220mm at 71.12, which is where he got the figure in the first place.
But it also says 680mm at 0 degrees.

It’s not 680mm because the game uses a unified calculation and every shell is underperforming.

Equivalent of 680mm at 0°. Also this written in a brackets. So-o-o…

it is quite clear that they are using LOS values, otherwise you wouldnt get the exact same value at flat as apfsds perform better at high angles than at 0º.

No wrong there.Even the Chally with two part can do that.5 seconds is the expectation for M1 and combat conditions focus the mind.

No it isn’t. Lmao.
It’s 3-5 seconds in ideal conditions in an exhibition video for the first few rounds.
If the tank is actively moving and engaging the enemy, the reload time increases significantly.

It’s pretty obvious that it’s entirely a buff made due to the poor performance of American players because the Leopard 2s with an extremely similar arrangement still reload in 6 seconds aced.

And reload times themselves are an entirely variable soft stat used for balancing. I hope you understand what that means.

Think this proves you wrong.

That is a lap-loaded, stationary/even ground… Challenger 2… Using its first stage ammunition, no less.
Completely different layout, all conditions I already noted. It’s like - am I talking to a human at all?

God, why do I even respond to these people…

No he is moving.

You are now about to be bombarded by a number of people showing common youtube footage of sub 5 second loading in modern MBT’s.

I would forget it mate.You are also in the presence of ex service personnel on here who have spent years of their lives inside an M1 or Chally 1 and 2 ,so dont make an ass of yourself.Just saying.

Not everyone on here is a kid with a few books.

Wait what shells do you X2 for? Is it only APFSDS?

The only thing really wrong with the abram’s is its armor. I have found tons of US Ministry of defense documents relating its armor but i’m not sure were to put them and if they are allowed.

1 Like