Like the hull roof is arguably fine
But the turret ring is actual horseshit from Gaijin’s actions to deliberately model it much larger than it is irl
They’ve done it a couple times but the other one on the tip of my tongue escapes me
Nevermind that the turret ring was allegedly (According to a tank commander) designed to destroy kinetic penetrators should it actually get hit by one rather than let it get all the way through
Though I’m sure that would still disable the turret in most cases, but its a very small target to hit irl
The turret ring armor is definitely not accurately modeled in-game. That much is also visible from images on google. Gaijin ground devs make a lot of changes to things in the name of “balance”. It’s why I do not bother reporting on ground issues almost ever.
I doubt its so much balance as being petty. Its a running trend.
This is also why I don’t bother reporting any issues with ground lmfao
1 Like
It’s purposeful that they shaft NATO while buffing Russia. Been going on since the inception.
3 Likes
In the picture of the damage they literally have the hole covered so classified armor isn’t exposed to the public.
You think google will just have pictures of the composite matrix for the world to see? Those production shots are filtered to not show anything the US army doesn’t want to show. I’m not even making that up, if a youtuber is talking to a military guy about military tech they have to give their SD card over to get scrubbed of any bad footage.
Yea the more i read about MIL-A-46099C the more i am amazed at the laminate, its still as of documents from 2009 listed as the best armor plates for ap protection in both penetration and ballistics, and apparently still difficult to produce.
1 Like
Yes
Check out the rest in this album.
Already you can see turret side armor composite, armored skirt composite, penetration of the hull.
That’s just 5 minutes of looking around on google images.
We’ve never had to do such things lol.
I would be careful posting that here
There is no issue with posting this. It’s not classified or restricted information. They are entirely sourced from news articles or other published media.
For example;
Additionally;
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/10sk91g/knocked_out_abrams/
1 Like
“published media” is not a classification authority.
News sites openly showing pictures of the Abrams in production or the exposed armor is public domain and not subject to the same laws. It isn’t as though they are publishing a classified document without permission that was illegally obtained. Everything I have and will post is permissible on the forum.
Funny none of these pictures of armor look like your google pictures of the production lines.
So you are a youtuber? Would like to see your channel.
1 Like
What do you mean by this? Every single picture I’ve posted thus far was from google. I’m not claiming to have taken any of these pictures myself. You didn’t think they’d be easily found, they are. There is the proof.
I don’t know what this has to do with the topic at all?
You know, earlier someone suggested the M60 had a spall liner and since I have never served on them I did some looking… can’t seem to find sufficient evidence that the US ever used spall liners on those, either.
Why doesn’t someone just call up the Lima plant and ask them
Cuz published pictures of the tank in both production and in service show no internal spall liner already from a 30 second google search.
I doubt you’ll find anything akin to APC/T-90 style draped ““liners””
Its most likely laminated into the material so a literal liner and not draped or whatever you want to call the challenger’s liner
so we’re shit outta luck unless someone cuts a chunk out
2 Likes
We’re out of luck regardless because the integral kevlar composite is not what Gaijin is looking for in regards to a “spall liner”. They want to see an interior liner. The M60, Abrams, etc have never ever had this. It’s because they don’t need it. Anything strong enough to penetrate the armor is not going to be neutralized by a simple spall liner.
Also worth mentioning, no crew members died in any of the above images of destroyed Abrams. No one died in an Abrams during the battle of 73 Easting. The Abrams has a very good survivability record in this regard without an internal spall liner.
1 Like
That can be said for most western tanks
Leo, Challenger, etc had casualties from friendly fire in the same battles where Abrams did not. Most of those had options for spall liners, not sure if they were used or not in those particular conflicts.
Not that i can find yeah the have been destroyed in friendly fire but i cant find any deaths before the war