But they already overhauled The T-XX series, when they added the autoloader model; why wasn’t the Turret Basket included at that point, if this was intended to be a universally introduced mechanic?
They did not implement any of the existing the existing reports on the issue with this revision even though they are how old?
Considering He’s a SME on this I don’t think that Bias really comes into it.
T-80UD to 9.7 when?
T-72AV, 2S38, T-80B, T-90A, etc. buffs when? 3BM-46 APFSDS for these MBT’s when?
‘‘They have a right.’’
Clearly it couldn’t be the player’s fault.
Fine, present evidence that supports the existing in-game M1’s having DU hull armour.
The historical record is being written as we speak, and the M1A1 SA’s ain’t doing so hot either.
But clearly that could only be for one reason, right? It must be purely because the M1A1 SA’s are bad tanks.
I’m sure that you’ll agree that none of the surrounding circumstances play any role whatsoever that result in these large percentages of M1A1’s being knock out.
It’s only vehicle’s fault when US is in question, players are definitely not “guilty”:
Before we start going off topic again
That’s entire issue here. If they are not willing to implement detailed modules for top tier vehicles at the same time, then don’t implement it.
This is undeniably a massive nerf to those tanks deserving or not. If all top tier mbts (or at the very least, the big three) got them, very little would be complaining.
This is a matter of preferential treatment and their reasoning behind it
All of this would be entirely fine if they just decoupled the basket from counting as a drive mechanism.
That’s literally all they have to do.
I don’t see this staying the way it currently is, but the trunnion is currently absorbing any and all spalling and only the M1’s have this modelled.
Again, low chance of this going unchecked, but if it does, the M1’s will by far be the most survivable hull-down tanks in the entire game.
How many Kh-38’s (with a thermal Targeting pod) can the new Su-30SM carry again? Yet Gaijin wouldn’t give the Brimstone F&F forget capabilities because it was unbalanced.
We feel weapons that can be used outside of the direct line of sight of the target without needing any preliminary reconnaissance or direct user targeting are not currently workable for the game. Weapons such as Brimstone, AGM-114L cause a particular problem and similarly to other ATGMs that have lock after launch modes like the Spike and AJ.168 will not have such abilities in the game.
These weapon types present several issues all at once, they require no challenge to use effectively and have no counterplay options for those being attacked. The attacker can operate outside of the range of any anti-air system in the game, Brimstone is also immune to smoke, so this won’t help either.
ARH modes for air-to-ground weapons won’t be workable until natural and artificial interference to these guidance systems can be implemented, as there are no electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare systems in the game. Adding these weapons now would allow them to operate perfectly without any counter, which we don’t want to do. Additionally, at closer combat ranges ATGMs with ARH cannot distinguish between allied and enemy targets, and this would lead to a large amount of accidental teamkills as well.
Just hit the Doghouse (primary sighting complex) or anything else on the Roof with 3OF26 (or any other HE warhead) and it dies.
I won’t be a dick about this.
USA hasn’t built a new Abrams Hull since the 90’s. All variants of the Abrams since the mid to late 90’s have been built on existing Abrams Hulls. Those hulls all have the same suspension as well.
Upgrades to the hulls that can be done to an M1A1 can be done to any model thereafter.
Same. Exact. Hull.
Ergo, if an M1A1 HC can have DU hull armor than an M1A1 AIM, SA, FEP, A2, A2 SEP, A2 SEP v.2, A2 SEP v.3 and any abrams in the future can have the function. And before you get on about weight, all of those tanks can equip the TWMP. Which weighjs 4.08 metric tons.
My snapshot for winrates today shows a different picture.
How many ?
How do you justify that? I mean percentage wise and total numbers wise it still isn’t close.
From memory, 6x IIRC.
I could bet that’s gonna get scrapped, just like Groms.
Air in GRB is already crazily compressed, this would just add fuel to the fire.
Oh it also seems that the trunnion also counts as the Vertical drive as well.
Wonder how the T-XX series tanks mount the gun in the turret without a Trunnion?
I have conclusion on the Abrams hull armor from the M1 to the A2(exclude AIM and SEP+)
All Abrams hull are the same while NOT being the same
“How? You gave sources yourself that stated those listed are the same hull”
Same hull, same armor composition. But BETTER armor architecture(2nd generation chobbham improve composite/NERA thickness and give better material which would increase the protection value of the hull, and follow up by 3rd(HC/HA) and 4th generation(A2) chobbham the protection value would also be different. 3rd and 4th generation use DU BUT for the hull DU was NOT USED FOR THE HULL which mean that Abrams hull from listed model has a duality, they are the same but also NOT the same.
As for AIM and SEP their hull would be close to each other and of course better than what is on the listed abrams model above(AIM/SEP likely use 4/4.5th generation chobbham without DU for HULL or whatever heavy armor composition the Aus come up with)
SEP V2 use 5th generation chobbham with DU in the turret and without DU in the hull
SEP V3 is the latest 6th generation chobbham with DU in both hull and turret
In conclusion, composite armor generation matter
As somebody who worked the program I can confirm an M1A1 SEP V.3 hull is structurally identical to an M1A1 hull.
There is no reason you can’t do DU.
They do matter, but Gaijin can’t do anything about it because it’s all sensitive/classified. When it comes to composite armor they only have shown documents about Chally 1. The rest is pure guesswork. They could basically make the numbers whatever they want. It’s fake. All of it (excepting the Chally 1)
They.
Have.
No.
Clue.
I feel like this is another “I am a 19kilo division sigma and delta i was in an Abrams” moment but hmmmmmmmmmmmm
suree
from what i see ingame and irl the frontal hull of abrams are about 50cm thick base on the ufp cut out, so it is likely they increase it to around 60cm or 38.1+400-480mm composite and backplate 101mm
Weight
im lazy, can you just point out the quote so i can ctrl+f
Also USMC and M1A1, he has a 40% chance of being on an M1A1 FEP
USMC veteran and active War Thunder player Conte_Baracca shares his recollections about active service in the M1A1 Abrams, and how this tank feels in our game.