No one is saying otherwise.
If you were flagged, there’s a high chance you did something that deserved a flag. You can also just edit your post to remove the flag.
Here’s a question,
As it is known that Chobham, that formed the basis of the first generation of US NERA Developments includes a Plastic strike face & backing layer, and the limited cross-sections we do have of the M1’s arrays don’t delineate between Non-Conventional, Conventional, and Homogeneous armor and said description is broad enough to include plastics.
Would it be a fair assumption to make that it is likely that The “Basic” M1’s Array’s(at very least, as it is specified in the document that the M1A1 uses a different configuration) also contain a similar layer.
Also is it just me or does the quality of the scans, and the reference [PDF page #12]
to the “Tri-plate” (?Three element? ) assembly mentioned in the definition of the Special armor make it look like the middle layer of the composite element that forms each layer is encapsulated, potentially the same way they are as outlined in the Chobham excerpts, which is known to be an unspecified plastic.
I’d report this but using Gaijin’s definition of a spall liner, it doesn’t count.
First up, let’s take a look at what the spall liner is in reality. The spall liner is part of the structural protection of an armored combat vehicle, designed to reduce the damaging effect in the main compartment once a tank is penetrated. To do this, liners are attached inside of the main compartment. Material such as fabrics made from aramid fiber are most often used, but other materials are also used occasionally too.
In the game, the effect of a spall liner is implemented as follows: inside the main fighting compartment, directly after the main portion of a tank’s armor, a module is present that imitates spall liner material.
This is in the sense the issue, where it probably wouldn’t count due to the definition they are using itself, since in effect The Strikeface / Backface encapsulation of the Plate element in the armor would cause some reduction to Spall generation, due to how shock gets transmitted though a dissimilar boundary layer(s).
And I think it would be somewhat more realistic of a measure then simply turning secondary shatters off for the array(s) in question.
To some degree the Pyrophoric properties of DU projectiles would counter these developments due to the Incendiary after armor effect(s), but is a mechanic that is still awaiting implementation.
2 Likes
This thread is full to the brim with people arguing that Russian equipment is good/better. It is those people I am addressing.
Not true. I have had several posts reinstated after mods looked at them without changes. There is a cabal of Pro Russia people on this server who mass complain about posts that aggressively deride Russian equipment.
The composition and effectiveness of any Abrams armor is either sensitive (controlled but not technically classified) or classified.
The only thing I can say is that nobody without access really knows anything.
1 Like
Well the Russian might considering they could take a look at whatever Export grade packages were fitted to the handful of recovered M1’s they have, not that it probably reflects all to closely the contemporary arrays, but whatever was installed probably reflects some existing configuration due to the speed of their deployment to Ukraine and the limits to what would be spent on any such program (I can’t image that the design and proofing of an Array configuration to be cheap or particularly quick).
Though there may be volatile components that won’t survive the hull burning up the same way the T-XX series’ Bakelite layers pyrolyze near completely and so are not present on many damaged hulls.
(The below is an M1150, and is likely not representative of the M1A1-SA sent to Ukrane)
I don’t really know what would happen if they ever released details publicly. Though I don’t think whatever department that is responsible would make too much noise or really be able to contain any such release to any significant degree, and so probably wouldn’t acknowledge it at all even if it was a full bill of materials & performance report.
It may be somewhat interesting if they ever get around to producing a Clean sheet tank design to see which way they go with the underlying Composite armor, though considering their focus on Reduced weight above all else, advanced (multi-hit )ERA packages are probably more likely.
1 Like
I can guarantee you would find it fascinating.
1 Like
It is not, I created it.
‘‘Before 2022 everyone thought they were 7ft tall, now everyone thinks they’re 5ft tall. In the meantime they’ve always been 6ft tall’’.
1 Like
Don’t ruin his echo chamber, abrams is the best just cause
Which tank has a better combat record over the last 35 years?
None.
Not even close.
Based on what? Seriously, which site has that detailed a breakdown. I would love to see it.
2 Likes
Well, to be fair, modern Western tanks haven’t had the chance to face their actual redfor counterparts.
In the Middle East wars the Abrams had an excellent record on, their only tank rivals were T-55s and T-62s, being the most formidable opponents early T-72s from the early 1970s armed with 1960s-spec 3BM9s; basically, the “hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby” meme.
I think that the Abrams is an excellent platform, much like the Leopard and other Western contemporaries, and definitely superior to the redfor counterparts by a large margin (in real life); but I don’t think the combat record says much, since they weren’t fighting their actual counterparts, but rather, the counterparts of their predecessors.
3 Likes
Oryx.
I compiled the total data into the chart as a rough picture of the types/distribution of vehicles Russia uses.
Obviously it will be subject to error given that not all losses are visually identified, some vehicle types may be more vulnerable than others, some types might be used by better units, some vehicle types might’ve been more prevalent in certain costly offensives, etc.
But I still like to use it mainly to challenge those who say the Russian army uses primarily modern vehicles.
The chart includes data from the 13th of may 2024.
Sure, but given the glaring weaknesses of the T-72/90 and T-80 there really is no way to meaningfully improve their protection (not I don’t say armor). Furthermore, they have received no meaningful upgrades to their mobility and they remain as outclassed in this fashion as they did 40 years ago.
However, given the Abrams performance in counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan the more subtle differences between the Abrams and the Challenger/Leopard gave them real advantages over their Western European contemporaries.
The Abrams has things like better durability, easier maintenance and a better ammunition setup that make it markedly better in COIN environments.
I know I am biased, but when working with the Canadians their issues with the Leopard II in Afghanistan I found, for many of the issues, to be less of an issue for the Abrams. The biggest advantage the Leo II had was in fuel economy. And that is not insignificant, but a wash with a proper logistical setup.
He expects he will face mig 21/su7 and t55s in his f15 and abrams. Many such cases in the american main playerbase
1 Like
You still avoid the question regarding your experiences in the US military which replicate this game at top tier.The fact you went all out to avoid the issue says it all.
What historical war situation saw the M1 in anything other than a Turkey shoot?
People on here will cite Ukraine M1 losses as an example of M1s facing Russian tech and being destroyed and we know what answer to expect.Same as M1 losses in foreign hands in the Middle East.
That expected answer will set me up to ask again ? What war did M1 USA crewed tanks face equivalent Russian at the ranges we play at in War Thunder?
Then there is the issue of protection from enemy CAS in reality and in game.
If your point is simply that the M1 turret ring issue is a joke or the M1 being weak in the game then that is about a kid at Gaijin jumping in to tweak it ,not some stupid idea of all things American offering God like protection just because you bounced a couple of RPGs in Afghan
.
1 Like
Just in case, I’ll do it xD: most Western tank casualties in Ukraine have been to FPV drones, mines, C*S and artillery, rather than direct tank engagements; so just like the Middle Eastern wars’ great performance isn’t a fair positive combat record, neither is the casualties on this conflict a fair negative combat record.
I mean, asking for armor fixes isn’t asking for God like protection.
But yes, the turret ring being a flat 50mm plate is extremely wrong, as it should be 220-280mm worth of volumetric armor even according to the game’s own modelling; and SEP and SEPv2 are still missing their improved turret armor (I’m not even going to talk about hulls anymore), and the fuel tank bulkhead geometries (missing top and side plates) and thicknesses (missing 1/3rd of their thickness) is still wrong too.
All issues that were reported and “accepted” long ago and which still haven’t been fixed or even addressed.
4 Likes
Uh. You do realize this justifies my point? The tank battles they have been part of weren’t more than a systematic slaughter by the Abrams.
Well, I’m not serving in Ukraine and cannot therefore say I have done it.
What I can say is that unlike anyone else discussing this topic here I have actually served on one of the tanks discussed. I was also in combat on the M1A1 HC in Iraq many times. I could also go on about being an armored combat professional with a broader and better understanding of all of the factors at play, but I don’t believe you are the type to accept what professionals say if it conflicts with your personal views.
Finally, as an actual Historian the historical record of the Abrams and Russian T-series tanks is quite conclusive. Everything from Desert Storm to Chechnya to OIF/OEF to Ukraine paints the Abrams as explicitly qualitatively superior to Russian equipment. Furthermore, the dominance of Israel of the Arab nations for the last 70+ years is relevant and conclusive about the inferiority of Russian equipment in general.
It’s actually vastly more complex than that. I have always maintained, since the first post, that nothing in this game at top tier is remotely realistic. It has a whiff of legitimate authenticity, but realism plays no real part in what goes on at the tier.
- Gaijin doesn’t have any data for western tanks on actual protection values except for the Chally 1.
- Gaijin doesn’t have any data for the same western tanks on armor composition or defeat mechanisms.
- Gaijin doesn’t use real ammunition data, it is all Demarre which is a poor analogue for anything other than a game.
- Engagement ranges in War Thunder are, the overwhelming majority of the time, ludicrously short in any real world context.
- Gaijin does not simulate fire control systems.
- Gaijin does not model the accuracy of any of the ammunition used.
- Gaijin does not model boresighting tolerances or weather.
- Gaijin does not model anything for gun accuracy other than some round to round dispersion based only on the barrel used and, again, with limited or missing data.
This is far more complex than armor values.
The point of my post is not to say Gaijin does not accurately portray tanks. That is a given. The point is that they clearly make Russian equipment better than IRL and NATO worse than IRL and in that sense all arguments about “data” needed to make changes is just a lie on Gaijin’s part. The changes should be made to affect balance in the game. And right now the game overly punishes the Abrams to the point that the win rate of the USA from 10.0 to 12.0 is the worst in game, by a lot. (WT Data project and Thunderskill numbers)
2 Likes
I don’t understand those picture, can you explain?
What red/green does? Protect or penetration?
What are those tabs? mm RHA (of armor or penetration)
% of ?
Thank you.
Because of different penetration standards used by various countries.
British documents claim L27 is capable of 700mm of LoS penetration @ 70° @ 2km.
L23A1 is claimed to possess 438mm of penetration @ 70° @ 2km.
The formula Gaijin uses provides results that closely match those values.
If used when appropriate and if the calculation is used with solid and accurate base information of the shells, it will provide very accurate estimations on penetration values, and importantly: without conflicting standards of measurement.
Simply put: If I were to create a vehicle combat sim, I wouldn’t be opposed to using a standardized penetration calculator to achieve realistic penetration values, as long as accurate data regarding the ammunition is known.
And Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2 Improved, Strv 122, Leclerc, M1 Abrams, etc. etc.
Another reason why they probably should’ve went the Gunner HEAT PC route and stuck with '80s timeframes if accuracy really was their main concern as they proudly claim on their website and promotional material.
Blaming that on the vehicle rather than the userbase is, uhmm, definitely one of the takes of all time.
Especially considering Russian winrates aren’t that great either (Couch 38% for TURMS-T Cough), and Gaijin has clearly allowed the Leo 2A7’s/Strv 122’s to roflstomp their way over every other country at top-tier, including Russia.
In fact, the majority of Top-Tier’s history has been Russia getting stomped by one of the NATO countries, whether that be the OG Leopard 1, the XYZ-70 Terminators, original M1 Abrams, IPM1, Leopard 2A5, Leopard 2A6, Strv 122, etc.
The simplest way to indicate bias towards Russia is to just under-tier their vehicles. Meanwhile everything surrounding the game points towards Gaijin using a system that is oriented towards players-stats based BR’s.
And though I’m clearly no expert on Air RB, those who are have made it very clear that Russian top-tier jets are not up to snuff either. I’d really like to see your explaination for why Russian Air is curiously not given the special treatment that Russian ground is.
3 Likes
[quote=“EddieVanHalo, post:805, topic:59362”]
Well it needs to be clarified for some
Literally in the first post I did that started this thread. That’s on you.
This is the fallacy of the extreme. In no way did I say they should make both tanks accurate representations. If you actually read my post my argument was that they need the performance to be more equal and currently it is not in favor of the Russians.
This is the crux of your argument and it ignores several things.
Do we have access to the gun and ammunition used on the T-90M in the west? Yes.
Do we test the effectiveness of that gun and ammunition? Also yes.
Do we test the effectiveness of that gun and ammunition against our the actual armor on the Abrams? Yes.
Do we implement significant changes to the frontal armor of the Abrams? No.
Can we afford to do so and do we have the technology to do so? Yes.
You are trying to act as if nobody knows the capability of both pieces of equipment. I have deliberately not talked about training, as that catapults NATO beyond Russia even if the equipment was equal.
All of those practical reasons why this is a non-argument aside there is the underlying point that this game is not very close to reality. Given that the game can make adjustments for balance as necessary.
You are not arguing in good faith as you are resorting to logical fallacies aplenty and not actually addressing any of my arguments. You are more interested in being perceived as correct than actually being correct.
No reason to continue this discussion further unless you actually start treating this like an actual academic debate and not ego stroking grandstanding.
1 Like
So you have access to those documents? I have not seen them publicly nor has Gaijin shown them, unlike the Chally 1 document on both counts.
Yup.
And to Gaijin credit (Yikes, this ain’t easy for me to admit) they have had a history of sharing some sources privately with me that I’ve not seen shared publicly before when I was dealing with some of their technical staff regarding bug reports.
They do have access to more sources than is generally attributed to them, of course they’re rather infamous for not acting on those sources, but that’s a different matter entirely.
Also, I hope that wasn’t the only thing you’re going to address from my post? Otherwise I wasted some time on points I wasn’t expecting you to concede so quickly :P
1 Like