2S38 being added despite only seen in some trials, BMP-2M at 10.0, Su-27, T-80BVM being the most dominant MBT for quite some time and even still viable now because of its ERA, T-80B getting thermals even though it was only tested a few times, Su-25 eating absurd amount of damage, Ka-50, Ka-52 being literal cancer, Pantsir-S1 with 20 km of range… Need I go on?
Oh and I know you flagged my replies.
…and now you’re making an argument that never existed?
They’ve implemented estimates on many of the modern vehicles with classified armor. This is just them refusing to improve other tanks for no valid reason.
Yet there was plenty to take that assumption from, unlike Abrams where some may say it has like 800 KE armour while other say 500-600.
Congrats for aiming from above and thus negating the constructional angle. Did you not learn anything from my explanations?
Seems not.
Leopard 2s are more maneuverable than T-90s; a cold take.
Ah yes, comparing them to some of the least manouverable and slowest MBTs at top tier. Truly a great comparison, you’re really out-doing yourself right there bud (and last I checked, it wasn’t “Leopard 2s”, but the 2A7V, which as of today is the least manouverable Leopard 2 in the game).
The 500-600 numbers came from the Swedish non-DU, non-US M1 export tank offered for trial? Why should that be applied to a tank that is known to have a completely different armor layout?
380 MM came from Sweden Trials, not 500-600. And it should be applied only because they dont know its actual updated armour while beibg pressed on by time cap to add them so community wont go crazy?
The turret was pegged at 500-600 from that trial.
From above?
The test drive physically doesn’t let you aim from above, that’s aiming in-line with T-90A.
The gun’s resting position is -1 depression, so it should be aiming down when you look straight at T-90 from the same elevation.
And I aimed for the highest possible position that still had armor.
T-80 for illustration:
And in game M1A2 turret is that good. I was talking of hull all the time. I know DU exists in turret, I know it exists in hull, however I have not yet to see anything that could be reliably taken as armour equivalent there.
…but the US M1A2 has a different armor layout and composition than what was in the Swedish trial. This is known.
I digress, though. You meant hull. My bad.
The Swedish test trials is like the Holy bible for gaijin and for some reason they love using a 30-year crappy old export package to model the most modern Abrams. Such brain-dead logic coming from gaijin.
Leopard 2 is taller than the T-90… being that close you’re artificially negating the angle of the upper plate (do you not know how differences in height works?)
The gun’s resting position is -1 depression, so it should be aiming down when you look straight at T-90 from the same elevation.
I’m gonna wait for you to measure it first, knowing you, you’re making this number up (and besides, due to Leopard 2s cannon being higher, that would be more than -1). If the cannon was in a resting position, you would’ve been aiming above the turret (I’ve already shown you this before).
First make sure your cannon is at the hull’s height, then try testing it…
They weight exactly the same. Swedish trials is what T-80U armour and K-5 is based on in game.
The evidence is posted in the comment you replied to.
There was no DU in the Swedish Abrams armor. If they weighed the same, they must have made the weight identical for a reason. Probably for balance, wear, or something else. But it is known it did not have the same armor.
Americans really didnt want their Abrams bought then if they literally made hull armour of T-64A level it seems. If the weight is the same they could easily use material like Tungsten or just different layout to solve the issue.
All while Germany is willing to help with upgrades and Russia sents T-80U with thermals.
All while later M1A1s AIM have DU.
“Evidence” that you’ve collected in an incorrect manner.
It’s not evidence, it’s a delusion.
I rest my case.
Their export armor design wasn’t nearly as good as the DU armor packages they had spent a lot of time and money on. They even said this. They improved the export armor package significantly for the Greek trials, where they stated the protection was close to approaching US DU armor packages. I can’t find the documents, but I remember reading a poorly translated report from the Greek trials where the Greeks rated the Abrams protection as very good. Their only complaint about the protection was it wasn’t as protected on the top of the turret as they would like.
Then consider that the winner was also caught up in corruption and bribery with Greek officials.
It’s literally side-shot of the barrel, which is evidence.
Screenshots can only be made perfectly horizontal.
