This isn’t about whataboutism but that made me curious. If the M1s get 800mm KE protection on the turret face, how much frontal KE protection does the T-90M turret currently have? Both its armor and ERA
I think this is categorically the worst thing ive read so far… let me explain why.
Firstly its a known fact the A3 shell just like DM53 used a 2nd penetrator design to defeat heavy ERA (this is not modelled) but I hope for your sake you dont decided to model the penetration of the “main” penetrator ONLY thus reducing the shells main penetration down from the estimated 750mm of pen the A3 offers (which I suspect will happen)
But what ticks me the wrong way here is because of community pandering you ignored the fact the British need L28 more than the USA need A3 and France jesus, these need new shells just as bad as British tanks do but instead your content with adding the A3 but wont even consider the OFL 120 F2 or SHARD lmfao
typical damage control but ignores the other nations that are suffering just as bad
4 Likes
~750-900 on the hull, ~800-1000 on the turret depending on the exact point of impact
1 Like
Things get a bit fuckier if you go with Haskew’s estimations on the SEPs for hull armor though. His estimate puts the LFP at about 650 on the lower hull.
2 Likes
That is what i used as the source yes, and someone posted a source from russia themselves that confirm the protection value, ignoring BRL test that give out increase protection by 35% for KE and 25% for CE compared to M1A1 Hull.
even if we took 550, thats fine because you still have a hugely exposed turret ring, this is why im so confused why they dont just buff it for balance purposes
20 Likes
I’m pretty sure he was quoting turret protect values, but regardless shame on US mains for giving protection estimates when Gaijin says we need armor estimates! Either way, even if Gaijin was crazy enough to give the M1A1HC, M1A1 AIM, M1A2 (the ones that have 2nd gen DU in the turret) 800mm of KE protection to the turret of these tanks, it would only bring them up to the standard of Russian and German tanks already in game.
I think the US mains would like to have their vehicles fairly represented in game. Most of us don’t want an OP vehicle were can we steam roll the rest of the nations.
2 Likes
Its funny too, if the M1s get the proper turret cheek armor, there’ll still be the gigantic shot trap right under the gun so its not like the M1s would be absolute bunkers
Pretty much this.
If there was at least some iterative improvements of some kind it wouldn’t feel as much of a dick punch.
1 Like
Hit the nail on the head.
Our biggest issue is that if gaijin is just so unwilling to estimate the armor then they shouldn’t even be adding these tanks in the first place.
Because these new Abrams are literally just heavier than previous one with no actual benefit in game.
That’s the whole reason why gaijin is trying to distract players with the possibility of a new shell (While also gimping the hell out of it by claiming it can’t defeat newer ERA)
2 Likes
Personally, I find 650 believable for the LFP for multiple reasons:
The “UFP” of the Abrams is literally an auto-bounce/shatter zone both in game and in IRL
The turret cheeks are already armoured enough to basically invalidate any russian KE ammo
Mantlet/turret ring are such a small target they’re not worth uparmoring in standard engagement ranges
So the only real place where it makes sense to add protection in bulk is the LFP. That being said however, 3bm60 only penetrates ~580mm point blank 90 degrees in-game right now. If said approximation is on point, it would mean that the SEPs would be more or less immune to 3bm60 from the frontal arc irl (discounting warthunder turret ring pixel precision shots). SEPv2 being from 2007 being so armoured as to completely stop an APFSDS from 2016 sounds a little weird to me however, but this is all of course personal conjecture.
Pretty sure people have made reports that 3BM60 pen is incorrect and should be higher. Correct me if I’m wrong
1 Like
I won’t be surprised when nothing is done about it.
Because to be honest, the claims of “Russian bias” are quite overstated.
Reminder that 3BM60 is outright the lowest penning shell at top tier, even with 6.5 second autoloader there are 6 and 4 second NATO autoloaders and NATO crews with 5 and 6 second aced reloads.
There’s loads of examples where Gaijin has bent rules for the sake of game balance.
I don’t agree they always make the right decisions, but they don’t really play national favouritism.
1 Like
L27A1 at 564mm of penetration & OFL 120 F1 with like 575mm of penetration: “Am I a joke to you?”
3 Likes
Easy fix for all Chally 2 and believe me this is the biggest problem these tanks have : increase the size or change were the first ammo stowage is. RN 5 sec chally is as good as any other top tier other than being way too slow but if the tank is slow irl i would care, but after first 4 shells your tank actually turns into slowest reload for top tier so it needs a fix.
the issue of “russian bias” is just an overarching term for Gaijin having weird, inconsistent, or just flat out incorrect ways to fix things, or implement things correctly. At least to me, that’s the way it is. I like to refer to M1 armor, the dude who gimped the Chinese by not doing his job correctly, the Challenger 2 armor not being armor, etc
edit: I do believe there is a bias though.
3 Likes
Regarding the 5 second reload change it sucks from both points of view. 5 seconds is the time to get qualified as a loader yes, but currently how warthunder is modeled it means your loader functions exactly like an autoloader thus sidestepping the only real upside of having an autoloader bar making the tank smaller/compact: loader fatigue. Not only that, the loader unlike an autoloader counts as an extra crewman for the purposes of repairing and staying alive