[M829A1] was used in desert storm.
Yo sarge i know u want abrums to get buff but chill out
no.
1 Like
3 Likes
These threads are so deppressing…
The Abrams tanks ingame have a fair plethora of issues regarding their modelling and implementation, and some of us do our best efforts to be taken seriously and have these matters addressed…
Then other people come in, begin making outlandish claims in regards to the Abrams, and throw the credibility of the criticism on the Abrams tanks down the sink, giving a bad reputation to those who want to have the Abrams’ actual issues addressed.
These are the only REAL issues regarding the Abrams tanks. Anything listed beyond this is nonsense that harms our efforts to have its actual issues corrected:
1- Still missing a properly modelled volumetric turret ring.
2- Still missing proper fuel tank bulkhead plates’ thicknesses.
3- Still missing proper fuel tank bulkhead armor geometries/plates.
4- SEP and SEPv2 still missing their improved turret armor.
5- SEPv2 still unable to take off the dead weight called TUSK II (it should be an optional modification).
6- M1A1 AIM still missing its historical KE-W A2 shell even though other Abrams tanks at the exact same BR use M829A2, which is even better.
7- M1A2 SEPv2 still missing its historical M829A3 shell for no particular reason even though Gaijin officially stated that it would still be balanced (at least that new shell would make it feel like an actual upgrade in ONE aspect…)
8- Misplacement of the hydraulic pump.
9- Hydraulic pump being taken out should lead to manual targetting (slower traverses), not full turret blockage.
There could be a case for improved hull armor on 2000s Abrams variants, as well as for internal spall liners- but those matters are comples and require more study to confirm. Until then, if the Abrams got the 9 fixes I listed above, it would be enough to make them significantly better and more faithful depictions of their real life counterparts.
10 Likes
and i hate how they only have first gen thermal
the FEP package were given to all USMC M1A1 that is available and also the 116 polish M1A1 but they just flush my bug report
1 Like
M1A1 FEP is a separate tank variant, just like HC, SEP, AIM, etc, are… I can’t see how this is anything bug-reportable.
1 Like
FEP would just have gen 2 flir, better fire control that wt does not have and improve armor profile
thats like it
M1A1(not hc) turret armor cant even resist against 3bm46
FEP also has third generation Uranium armor elements
Yeah, and that’s why it’s a lower BR than SEP, for example. If you give it a FEP mod, it would have to have its BR increased.
Not to mention that then you would need to give it M829A2/A3, while M1A1 is currently limited only to M829A1.
M1A1 FEP is a completely different and separate tank from M1A1, and they would need to be drastically different BRs as well. You can’t just make FEP a mod for basic A1…
1 Like
Then why dont HC have 2nd thermal
HC is an older variant which has 1st gen thermals.
FEP is a more modern variant than HC, which is why it has more advanced thermals.
M1A1 - 1986
M1A1 HC - 1991
M1A1 FEP - 2004
If M1A1 FEP were introduced to the game, it would be comparable to M1A2 SEP. You can’t make a 12.0-level package an optional modification of a 11.3 tank…
If anything, maybe FEP could be a modification for HC.
1 Like
Its quite the opposite but still not the full answer. Rafael´s US7360479B2 was originally published in 2004 as Merkava 4 started being produced in small quantities. Further evidence that this kind of protection is part of Merk 4 armor are the explosive markings on most of its armor modules (warning labels), the confirmed presence of flyer plate-like elements seen on damaged modules and the fact that the overall layout of the armor modules doesn´t correspond to traditional ERA. So the modules have explosive-reactive materials, they have flyer plates but yet don´t seem like ERA.
However, the very likely SLERA elements inside Merk 4 armor aren´t the main APFSDS defeating mechanism. They play a part but in reality the whole module works in a different way when impacted by APFSDS. For more detail on the matter I suggest: Understanding Merkava 4 armor protection. Part 1 of 3
The first source we have with clear armor rating for Merkava 3 is Chinese, back when they had unprecedented access and collaboration with Israeli military industry during the early 1990s. One popular theory is that J-10 traces its origins to this period. And yes, the source is part of an article regarding the official visit of Merkava Program Director (General Tal) to China. Patents from this time period corroborate what the Chinese state Merkava 3 armor is composed off. For reference see US5070764A - Combined reactive and passive armor - Google Patents.
So its about 420mm KE for the front hull, including the powerpack compartment. BM42 was a realistic threat at the time or shortly afterwards since even until today its part of Syrian ammunition inventory.
man im piss how hard it is to see using gen 1 thermal
I already have 360p vision irl and i have to downgrade them in game just because gaijin want accurate
why not just give them only 2nd gen thermal then
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
How are you so sure they are better? maybe irl they are even worse than ingame? lmao
1 Like
Hahah, yeah, I can’t bring myself down to using 1st gen thermals.
It’s literally what keeps me from playing Sweden and its Strv 122 lineup. They may be the best MBTs in the game in every way… but they have 1st gen gunner thermals, and that’s enough to make me not want to play them, xD.
That would be an artificial change of technical specs of a vehicle, which is not something we want to have in War Thunder.
1 Like
Insert T-80B
Insert 2s38
gaijin wont use a chinese source for the merkava sadly.
yet they will use a american source for a russian tank
? where at?