Just like Abrams and its turret ring; it’s not a weakspot currently because the whole hull is.
The difference is that, now, you can hit the ring AND/OR the hull; but with improved hull, this no longer is an option, and, instead, you must resort to the turret ring.
The vulnerable front surface area would be reduced by more than half its current size.
It would take longer to aim for a valid spot and hitting the hull would be punished, unlike now.
The hull is a gamble, not necessarily resulting in a crippled tank or kill. The aiming time also wouldn’t really be reduced because the turret ring is handily placed center mass. I guess a scenario where it would actually help, is when you’re cresting a hill.
Leopard 2 lfps are pretty easy one shot kills still though.
It makes no sense to prove the Abrams has spall liners.
Gaijin accepts 2 pillars of data validation:
As such, it is completely unnecessary to prove the Abrams has spall liners, as it goes against Gaijin policy. Gaijin also does not ask whether said information is valid, but rather whether it would make sense on SOME level, at least from a gameplay point, and rejects applying a uniform standard by which reports are measured.
So the correct approach would be to assert that from a technological and conceptual point of view, it would make sense that the Abrams either has spall liners or an equivalent measure to achieve the same effect. And also, that since Gaijin cannot disprove the existence of such measures, spall liners must be implemented.
here ill make it easy for you to see if you actually get there
by this logic you are admiting the abrams does in fact have a spall line
thats funny coming from someone with a double digit iq
Good lord, I traded the Americans stating internal DU spall liners exist for this…
I think I’d rather converse with those deluded people rather than this oaf.
yes pls be on your way
I’ve got thousands of kills in various M1’s. The total number of times I’ve been frontally killed by autocannons can be counted on one hand.
Like I said, it won’t make a significant impact on the performance of the vehicle.
???
The UFP of the M1 is the strongest in the entire game, the video linked above shows it’s resistant even to the Object 292 at point blank range.
The lower glacis ranges between 379 - 424mm, the hull of the M1 is better than the Leopard 2A5, 2A6, Leclerc (any variant), Challenger 2 (any variant), Ariete and Merkava (any variant).
Seriously, the weakest part of the M1’s hull is still as good as the strongest part of the Merkava’s hull. I’m not sure how you could claim that the M1 has the second weakest hull here.
Source?
Refer to my comment above.
We both know this isn’t true whatsoever considering the M1’s have received countless buffs to their performance over the years.
An M1A2 SEP in War Thunder today is much superior to the M1A2 back in 2019.
This is just wrong. In 2019 it was mostly firing 120mm DM33 equivalents (except for the Leclerc and Ariete) which it was pretty decently protected against.
It was only with the mainstream additions of 3BM60/DM53/m95 etc when the Abrams armor and survivability took a real hit.
I remember unlocking the Abrams/IPM1 only 2 weeks after they came out in very early 2018, and they were easily the best top tier tank by far. These vehicles that are 10.3/11.0 today were facing the far inferior T-64B back then.
I was a much, much worse player than I am today, and was playing them stock, yet I still managed a 2 K/D in the M1. I also think it’s extremely facetious to say that Italy has a “better armored” and “better overall tank” than America - when it’s just a copy-pasted Leopard 2A7. You know. The best tank in the game? That’s been copied over into three separate trees? That’s not Italian?
The Leopard 2A7V (GER), Leopard 2A7V (HU) and Strv122Bs are effectively the same vehicle. Let’s be real.
The 2A7Vs are exactly the same, essentially, and the Strv 122s trade a shorter barrel for more side composite. Basically the same vehicle, and you can classify it as one vehicle.
And it’s the best vehicle in the game. So it’s better than the M1A2 SEP V2.
So you have a ranking that goes:
What tank is the 2nd best? The Abrams. Easily. 5 second reload, turret rack with a blowout panel, 34km/h reverse, 10 degrees of gun depression, impenetrable cheeks, auto-ricochet UFP, 2nd best APFSDS shell in the entire game. (Arguably the best because it does have DU properties modeled to an extent and it spalls more than other shells while still having only 20mm less pen than L/55 DM53).
The Abrams is better than the LeClerc, it’s A LOT better than ANY Chinese MBT, it’s better than the Merkava by far. It’s better than the Ariete, it’s better than the non-2A7V Leopards. It’s better than the Type 10. It’s better than the T-90M and I would personally say that it’s better than the BVM, but there’s hordes of people WHO HAVE NEVER PLAYED AN EASTERN TANK (CHN/RUS) that would swear that the BVM is 100 times better than the Abrams.
I would take the M1A2 over the BVM in almost every case due to its gun depression, reload, shell, and reverse speed, and these are all things that are more valued by more experienced players. The US is the first tree many people play (it was for me), and there’s far too many “US mains” that never played anything but the US.
In my eyes, America has the 2nd best top tier tank. And keep in mind that the American top tier lineup consists of like ~6 of them with similar performance. Russia only gets the T-90M and BVM as true top tier tanks, while tanks like the T-72B3 and T-80U fall behind when it comes to top tier performance. An M1A1 AIM and M1A2 SEP are very similar.
And the Abrams is one of the more accurately modeled top tier tanks by far. The only glaring issue it really has is the thickness of the turret ring being ~60mm. Anyone who has researched the other top tier tanks can confidently say that the Abrams is basically perfectly modeled in comparison to tanks like the Challenger 2, ZTZ-99A and Ariete AMV.
Yes as i and the others have discuss in this thread before.
As there still no hard source that indicate Abrams has no spall liner while there also no offcial source (there are a few source but not somethings like manual) that state Abrams has spall liner.
Conclusion -There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet” .
In the mean time Gaijin should just add ballistic vest + helmet to everyone at top tier.
I would say 1. Strv 122/2A7, 2. Type 10, 3. BVM and 4. Leclerc/SEPv1.
And yes I specified SEPv1 here, because the SEPv2 is a downgrade over the SEPv1 in game.
The Type 10 is very strong, but it’s not better than the Abrams. It has far worse armor and only 7 degrees of gun depression.
The BVM is certainly not better than the Abrams, and I specifically spent a long portion of my post talking about it because it seems to be a common sentiment, yet is entirely wrong.
The BVM reloads slower, fires a far inferior shell, has well known weakspots all the same, frontally and side-on (20mm lower sides, incredible how most people seem to just forget them), reverses 3 times slower and has ~5/6 degrees of gun depression.
I don’t know what compels you to not at least put them as equals, but you directly put the BVM over the Abrams, which is insane.
And the LeClerc is also very good after the 5s reload buff - but its UFP is incredibly large and essentially unarmored, along with a ~50mm LFP. And its gun depression is also only -7. While only firing 3BM60 equivalent.
You simply do not want to admit that the Abrams is outright the 2nd best vehicle. To say that the LeClerc is equivalent to the Abrams is to be rightfully insane.
Russian mains try not to stick their noses into others topics challenge (impossible)
You might as well say the entire vehicle’s unarmoured at top tier, cause well, it kind of is once we account for ~90% of tanks firing ~600mm/+ KE projectiles.
Neither of them should rely on their armor, because anyone with 2 braincells will easily 1 shot kill both of them. Also type 10 can get up to 12 degrees of gun depression with it’s suspension iirc.
As of now both of them have a similar playstyle, highly mobile flankers with a fast reload that should always avoid being hit and just being in a frontline fight in general. It’s just that the Type 10 does this role even better.
It fits the close range CQB meta that is a large part of top tier a lot better than the Abrams, which is why I put it higher.
Also the penetration difference between 3BM60 and M829A2 only makes a difference in some niche situations.
It really doesn’t fit the close range CQB meta any better than the Abrams. Its main advantage over the Abrams (side armor with the ERA) is also countered by the Abrams 5.3 second expert reload (reload is extremely useful for CQB), reverse speed, higher spall.
You are not one-shot killing an Abrams that is making an effort to use his armor. If he’s using his gun depression and moving his tank, you are not even going to penetrate, much less one shot.
Literally any tank that’s just rolling down a corridor is an easy OHKO. A Russian tank will get shot in the LFP and die all the same. Armor is something that you have to consciously use.
Also, even many CQC-esque maps have places where you can utilize gun depression. Such as Alaska or Normandy.
And if you’re not on a CQC map, if you’re on Pradesh, Sands Of Sinai or Red Desert - the Abrams is outright superior by far.
Nice deflection, you have no proof so you keep coping and asking for artificial buffs
Except that is what I’ve been doing quite a bit for the last few weeks. Even hull down they are quite easy to OHK.