I’d put them above Japan, but I really don’t rate Japan that highly so it’s not saying much.
How tall do you think a 99A is?
2 Likes
Man, my chart is working overtime this week…
4 Likes
For Abrams UFP debate. It really heavily depend on the angle of impact which mean the factor could be varied.
As in battle Abrams hull might be pointing downward / upward depending on terrain . Or that enemy sitting taller than Abrams. I assume even shell drop would also contribute to this (As i use to pen Abrams UFP using HEAT-FS from T-64/80s. Worst stock grind)
First let me link an article:
US-made Abrams are better than Russia’s best tanks in the war, Ukrainian commander says, and it’s not even close (msn.com)
Now, of course, that’s just one guy who is surely angling for more aid.
However, as a part of the development team for Abrams tank as well a combat veteran on the Abrams. I feel I am a bit more qualified then people doing public access intelligence gathering.
You guys just don’t know what you don’t know. I can only discuss it so much, because so much is classified, but Russian and, by default, Chinese tanks are crap.
First, the use of the autoloading ammunition carousel underneath the turret is a critical design flaw. It guarantees that any real hull penetration results in catastrophic destruction of the tank. The fact that Gaijin allows “yellow to black” ammunition damage without destroying these tanks is an unrealistic survivability change to keep all Chinese and Russian tanks competitive.
Second, IRL the autoloader is meaningfully slower than any decently trained NATO loader. This is also not reflected in the game.
Third, the mechanical performance of Russian and Chinese tanks is, in fact, garbage. They are slow, lack reliability, and their turret performance is shit, compared to NATO.
Fourth, anything requiring modern electronics is another significant gap. In short China and Russia lack the infrastructure (both intellectual and mechanical) to compete in modern Fire Control Systems without imports. Which leaves Russia painfully at a loss right now.
Fifth, War Thunder does not accurately represent the accuracy of Fire Control systems, ammunition, or gun tubes in the game. Everything is hyper accurate. But IRL, NATO tanks are SIGNIFICANTLY more accurate than Russian or Chinese tanks. There are just too many limitations on the Russian 125 to compete.
Sixth, NATO builds much better ammunition, in terms of quality of rounds. Especially when large lots are factored in.
In short, Russian and Chinese tanks are propped up on many levels while NATO tanks are artificially equalized.
The point, to all of this, is that Gaijin is faking everything at top tier. That’s okay, it’s a game, but it leads to a lot of misconceptions about the real life value or lack thereof of these vehicles. This, to me, justifies in asking for DU hull armor for many of the Abrams tanks in the game. Which is what this article is all about.
4 Likes
And yet we have a Swedish tech tree based on fantasy prototypes and guess work and they make it equal just because they can.So why not do the same with the US.
If I call for era separation I am told the game is not real .If call for equality to make for a fun game I am told it’s not realistic.
War Thunder just seems to be directionless in almost every area.It really has no sense of itself or what it wants to be.
In my experience that shows a lack of leadership at the very top.
If war thunder cannot balance on a vehicle for vehicle basis then balance it in another way, SP , or unbalanced numbers or maybe CAS ,just something ,anything but to just leave it and hope for the best is just destroying the games reputation.
The game needs a major push either in terms of an unrealistic /fantasy element to make fun game play or a realistic reflection of the true situation using balance or unbalance if you like , in a totally different way.They are kind of doing this by forcing NATO MBTs onto smaller maps which favour non NATO tanks.
2 Likes
It’s also important to keep in mind that said Ukrainian commander hasn’t (presumably) commanded a T-90M himself, thus the conclusions made are on rather thin ice (Not that I think the T-90M is all that relevant, as I’ll explain later).
Another Ukrainian service member has released what is essentially a ‘‘Chieftain’s Hatch’’ episode on a captured T-90M, in which the following remarks are made:
-
- Built in 2020, documentation found dated to 2022.
-
- Features Nakidka cover to reduce thermal signature.
-
- Ability to detect laser radiation systems.
-
- Taken out of action by an ATGM striking the turret side inbetween two Relikt plates killing the commander, additional FPV drones struck the vehicle, and it was later unsuccessfully attempted to be scuttled.
-
- Camera’s integrated in wind sensor for 360° situational awareness.
-
- Dynamic protection coverage improved over T-72 models.
-
- 22 rounds are stored in the carousel autoloader, this is the most protected area of the tank and least likely to be struck, the rest of the ammunition are moved to a isolated bustle rack at the rear of the turret.
-
- The tank should’ve been equipped with Arena APS but ultimately weren’t fitted
-
- The panoramic commander’s sight complex accounts for 20% of the vehicle’s overall cost, it is fully stabilized with a wide-angle view, features day and night channel, thermal channel, and a integrated laser rangefinder. The commander can also conduct fire independently from the gunner.
-
- The spall liner succeeded in containing the secondary debris from the penetration.
-
- The comfort of the vehicle has much improved due to the new turret giving much greater interior volume, this large size improves all battle capabilities of the tank drastically.
-
- It has climate control.
-
- Features navigation system and tactical management system, but don’t work consistently because there is no unified communication system in the Russian brigades. Communication systems are also behind Western counterparts.
-
- Gunner’s thermal sight does not feature cooling matrix, this leads to reduced observation capabilities and is limited by time.
-
- This specific T-90M uses an older 2A46M gun produced in 1992.
-
- The driver has improved situational awareness due to receiving his own monitor.
-
- The tank was attempted to be scuttled by placing the engine deck on fire, but the engine remained intact and functional.
-
- The T-90M features an auxillary power unit at the rear flank, this powers a great amount of devices and is the first time such a unit is fielded on a tank of Russian/Soviet origin, this allows the vehicle to work autonomously for a long time while saving the resources of the engine, this also reduces the tank’s visibility due to reduced thermals signature and reduced engine noise.
-
- Features powerful modernized engine.
The T-90M does however have one major upside over (nearly) all Western tanks supplied: It’s significantly lighter. This is the most common complain I’ve read from Ukrainian units operating Western designs. Their weight has limited their battlefield mobility and thus their avenues of attack were often predicted by Russian forces, which had established kill-zones for these vehicles.
Of course, I’m not implying this is automatically a deal-breaker, just something that should be kept in the conversation.
All that being said, I’ve also done some research into the kinds of tanks Russia is fielding, I compiled it into a chart:
I get the feeling that many people who tend to argue from the Russian-side overrate how numerous the T-90M is. It’s a VAST minority, and even at that I don’t personally believe the T-90M is superior.
The vast majority of Russian tanks are simply outdated cold war vehicles, namely the T-72B, T-80BV and T-80U. These are obviously lacking compared to Western main battle tanks.
The T-72B3 and B3M also make up a large proportion of the tank fleet, but I’m personally not very impressed with that particular upgrade effort.
But then it’s also difficult to dismiss the fact that Russia is fielding several THOUSAND more 125mm-armed tanks than Ukraine has M1A1’s. With this conflict being centered around artillery fire, you cannot argue that having such a drastic imbalance in barrels is a non-factor.
But not one that was unique during the period of it’s development.
It’s important to keep in mind that the M60 was the primary US counterpart during the development of the T-64 and T-72 (as well as Leopard 1, AMX-30 and Chieftain), over 50% of the M60’s frontal profile could be filled with (non-isolated) ammunition stowage.
At least the T-64 and T-72 placed it’s ammunition as low down as possible, and behind the most sophisticated armour protection in the world at that time.
The obvious issue is that Germany has now developed insensitive ammunition and the Abrams stores it’s ammunition fully isolated. These Soviet designs have just become outdated.
- M1 Abrams reload rate: 5.3s
- Leopard 2/Strv reload rate: 6.4s
- Merkava reload rate: 6.4s
- Leclerc reload rate: 5s
- Type 10 reload rate: 4s
- Challenger reload rate: 5.3s - 6.4s
- T-90, T-72, T-64, T-80, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 reload rate: 6.5 - 7.1s
Slowest reload rates at top-tier are those of Russian and Chinese MBT’s.
This particular comment leads me to believe you’re quite ignorant when it comes to the gameplay of top-tier Russian/Chinese tanks.
I’ll take a wild guess and assume you’ve never played them yourself, otherwise you’d have known this.
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
I’ve recently listened to a podcast interview of a Indian ex-military, he explained that 87% of Indian military equipment is of Russian/Soviet origin, he also explained how India is not having trouble with reliability issues.
No, Gaijin is basing it’s vehicles off of publicly available documentation.
Said documentation might very well be incorrect, but there is obviously no better alternative available. Perhaps you are personally inclined to have every stat made up, but I’d then point you to World of Tanks or Armoured Warfare for that particular experience.
Current documentation shows that the premise of the in-game M1A2’s having DU hull armour is simply false.
Aside from that, the M1’s are still absolutely excellent MBT’s as they stand, and easily capable of dealing with any Russian MBT they come across.
5 Likes
Give me even one Swedish vehicle ingame that’s based on “fantasy prototypes and guess work”, please?
At least one functioning vehicle was made for every single example in their tech tree, better than Russia and Germany.
I guess your comment would make sense if you’re on the wrong forum, and actually mean to be on the WoT forums instead?
I understand much of what Conte Baracca is saying but there is much he can surely have zero experience of, the biggest being USA tanks facing enemy tanks of the highest quality and similar era.When in history did such an engagement take place?
The M1 does not shrug off fire from other M1s so why should it bounce shots from other NATO or Russian tanks with similar guns firing similar ammo?
Warthunder is not about seal clubbing ancient tanks already decimated by vastly superior air power for days on end.Its tank vs tank ,no infantry and no choosing how and when the engagement will take place.
I just feel any kind of prior knowledge is irrelevant to this game at top tier.I just wish Gaijin would admit they have no clue past a certain BR and just make it fun for all.
I think you need to have a read of WT wiki and see just how many vehicles never saw a day of service with their respective country’s military, for all nations.You might be surprised.
1 Like
Which document are you basing this off?
Do we even have an explicit configuration that they are attempting to represent or is it just a nebulous M1A2 / SEP / SEP v2 etc.
3 Likes
Pretty sure they said they were taking liberties with classified tanks all the way back in New E.R.A when they announced going forward into composite armours
1 Like
Considering the following passage from their M1 armor Article
I doubt that they are intending to improve the hull armor whenever the SEP v3 turns up, let alone in terms of CE, which flies in the face of evidence.
take for example
Which would indicate that at very least CE protection improvements were made to the hull, to account for the propagation of Tandem and larger warheads.
Which brings into question about why armor is being obtained from the DoE, not the contractor / BRL.
And finally the amended nuclear materials license which permits DU components to be used as needed in M1.
5 Likes
I believe @Count_Trackula also presented accurate sources in the devlopement blog from the Devs about DU in the hull.
Yeah, I think that’s where I found them.
If gaijin chooses not to upgrade the hull on sepv3 even though we have proof, it will end up being the final conformation to the community that gaijin is intentionally gimping the Abrams.
4 Likes
SE#1 & 2 were both canceled in large (apart from the DU turret front) due to weight concerns:
Anything past that is not related to those upgrades and should be treated as its own thing.
Which brings into question about why armor is being obtained from the DoE , not the contractor / BRL.
Assuming that document is talking about the SEPv2 mod 2 (~2011 DOI), it’s because of NGAP/NEA Mk.1
something something, production model Abrams do not have upgraded protection, something something suspension never upgraded…
Anyways, I for one look forward to being able to laugh about the SEPv3’s situation.
I cant wait to see how they spin this one.
1 Like
They said not enough sources, and then the Suspension, and after that they’re not gonna say anything just ignore ignore ignore.
Did you not read the last sentence?
“The Army Plans to introduce the remaining portions of the Block II survivability enhancements only as corresponding weight reductions are achieved”
There was an intent (and a need) to incorporate those changes from (at least) the beginning of the -A2 program, when possible. It is likely that this would have occurred by now with at least one of the variants since the problem only gets exacerbated by time as more powerful threat systems are developed and increase in number and availability.
Also I’m assuming that it entirely ignores the presence of the almost 11 ton mine roller, since otherwise literally no service M1 configuration does not fail to come in under the 72 ton limit, let alone failure of the later SEPs to remain below it.
Yep look at how they gimped the Leo2 A7V should have about 700-725mm KE protection on the front hull.
1 Like