the turret that probably needs to be removed to be able to remove the side hull armor plates? otherwise the turret is above the sides thus making it not possible to lift them out?
do you think they are taken off from outside or something?
So in your copium-addled mind, you believe that the Abrams tank requires you to remove the turret to access the side armor, but somehow does NOT require you to remove the turret to maintain… the floor, the tracks, the radiators, the electrical equipment, the engine, the fuel tanks, the transmission, or ANYTHING else? Since by your logic, any and all other such things would have to be part of the nuclear materials license, but aren’t?
Alternatively to this near-magical construction of the whole tank, they could, you know, just have not used an implied word once (which would not have confused anyone with the actual plans). But that’s RIDICULOUS lol
how does that logic track? the turret is not physically in the way of any of those things.
do you know how a turret looks when out of the tank?
see that ring underneath the otherwise only visible part?
that ring is in the way of the sides from the inside.
oh and how would you lift those armor inserts out upwards with the turret covering them from above when its mounted in the tank?
1 Like
No man, you totally win. It’s definitely the case that the Abrams tank requires removal of the turret to touch any side panels, like a modern Prius, but doesn’t require it’s removal to do LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE, every other system is like a 1950s ford truck. And that’s clearly far more reasonable an assumption than “One guy one time left out one not-ver-important word in one document”
Dead to rights, I have no defense, you got me good.
okay then, how do they get to them?
What do you mean? I agree with you on every detail. They have to remove the whole turret for that and that alone, like I just said. 100% logical. Not sure why you’re still going on at someone who just fully agreed with you
do you want me to paint you a picture in paint to explain?
or do you think they magically phase through the turret somehow?
Painting just for you:
engine removal, turret still on:
2 Likes
hope this helps with any hull related issues
‘‘manufacturing-center-lima-army-tank-plant-in-lima-ohio-april-23-2012’’ source of the pics
8 Likes
It says M1A1
makes no more sense to waste time here and that is sad but we know what worked last time i just wish there was a nicer way
1 Like
Except that in War Thunder Russian tanks have never been the strongest.
Swedish tanks have been the strongest the longest. Russian equipment is inferior outside T-90M.
Soviet tech tree jets are not the best, good, not the best.
1 Like
If i can help idk a lot of tanks but here in these fotos of a merkava mk 1 you can se a separation of 2 materials
2 Likes
USSR tech tree win rated ground RB 2023-04-09
For top tier (11.0+) win rates is 72%. Russian tanks not op? Must’ve been a coincidence then… (btw for the Swedish it’s 52%).
All those percentages you listed are made up.
Win rate is an indication of team skill, not vehicle power BTW.
Really not made up though, that is a straight up lie.
Assuming they are talking about the thunderskill/WT heat map stuff, that is just very incomplete and thus unreliable data as only a small % of the playerbase visits thunderskill and thus gets counted.
Well, it sounds cooler than “anecdote” cause correctly using anecdote here feels weird with how many people misuse anecdote.
Using Thunderskill to make a narrative argument about vehicle power is anecdotal though.
Saying it’s fake data is still accurate since it’s less than 2% of monthly battles, and even less of total battles.
Saying it’s fake data is inaccurate because it’s implied that the data is made up and not real, which is false.
It’s still real data from real players. The sample size is just waaay to small to be used for large scale arguments for vehicle performances.
It’s a great site for people who want to track their personal performance though.
1 Like
They could have given out ASSTA 2, he just had GBL and lightning 2. And not only GBU. I will send the list of ASSTA 2 weapons as soon as I log in to the computer. Please make a suggestion or bug report on this
Why out of at least 6 aircraft that were unique. But you deliberately chose the worst possible option. Yes, the developers tried to make MW1. After all, the number of sales depends on the quality of this prem aircraft.
8 Likes
You see, these people think that when the turret is only mentioned when talking about a side protection increase, it must mean the unqualified frontal protection can’t possibly include the hull. The only reason they would mention turret specifically when talking about side protection improvement means they aren’t excluding the hull when talking about frontal improvement.
Here, have an L, @A_Cute_Chihuahua.
I don’t know why you trying to bait-and-switch by highlighting non-DU armor is some kind of win. We’re talking about DU armor upgrades. Provided by the DOE. Frontal includes the hull. Only side protection improvement is mentioned as being limited to the turret. Cope.
10 Likes
Hey Gaijin,
I might be a bit quick to judge, but seeing as I have only seen the US win around 4 of the iirc 20-30 games I have played as or against them yesterday, I feel kind of safe to assume that the increased reloads don’t have an effect and that the SEPv2 is still an inferior tank to the 2A7V and Strv 122B+.
Seeing how the armor situation is at a dead end at the moment, I want to propose a few somewhat smallish changes that would in my opinion really give people at least a reason to play the SEPv2:
-
Give the SEPv2 M829A3: I know you said that it wouldn’t make a big difference, but even without the anti ERA tip it would offer 40/30mm extra pen at 0°/60°. This would make it different from the SEPv1 and give it better firepower than the 2A7V and 122B+, which currently hold both the armor and survivability advantage.
-
Make TUSK II a modification: From the quote in the SEPv2 dev blog it’s quite clear that you want to make a SEPv2 the rat/flanker tank, better staying far away from the objective and any enemies frontal arc. The problem is that the SEPv2 is a pretty sluggish tank and having the loudest engine and tallest profile makes it unsuited for this role. By making TUSK II a modifications people can get rid of the sluggishness and tall profile likely causing it to perform much better.
-
LFP armor: I know this is at a dead end currently, but it would be a nice improvement when things change.
You seem to want to have the abrams perform a similar role as the Type 10, Leclerc, Ariete and Merkava. This of itself is fine, but the problem why this works for these nations and why the US is tanking so hard is because the amount of US players on the team is just too high. the before mentioned nations can just do their thing as there are usually only a couple of them on each team with the rest being made up of Russia/Germany/Sweden. If the US decides to do this half of the team is usually gone.
TL;DR: Too many US players on US teams for the players to perform the role Gaijin envisioned for the Abrams. SEPv2 to large and noisy to perform the flanker/rat role, needs some more changes to it.
4 Likes