But that’s not an MBT is it?
1 Like
Why does the classification of a vehicle matter whatsoever?
The point stands that Gaijin is modelling massive drive mechanisms that includes parts of the basket for Russian vehicles this patch as well.
Now I happen to know you’re not okay with the HSTV-L turret basket model, but that’s also not an MBT either.
2 Likes
Because it’s not being rolled out universally, across all counterparts and so is unfairly going to be adversely impacting the performance of select vehicles. Especially considering how much more common the M1 / Leopard series is vs support options.
This is a false equivalency. The BR, use of the vehicle, and the overall damage model are very different.
And, to me, it’s not really about BIAS. It’s about how Gaijin is unfairly hamstringing the Abrams. The Abrams, in the game, needs DU hull armor. To not do it is a pernicious decision. I understand why they fake the hell out of the T-72/80/90. IRL those tanks are tremendously bad. All tanks with carousel autoloaders are deeply and fundamentally flawed. But to then to turn around and not give the Abrams DU hull armor is head scratching. It’s a gigantic weak spot, not present to that scale on any other MBT
1 Like
You can’t expect them to do so given the amount of work that would entail.
Regardless, this is an issue of incorrect components being counted as drive mechanisms, not the overall idea of implementing more detailed modules.
Plenty of tanks have/will have the same treatment.
Stop it with this victim complex that is characteristic of US players.
That would entail adding one of those 5 known vehicles to possess such a hull array, the problem with that is it could only be a M1A1 HA/HC.
My suggestion stays the same as it always has: M1A2 SEP v3. There you’ve both turret and hull armour upgrades.
That’s just your personal bias and can be dismissed as such.
This is pure and simple ignorance regarding what other nations have to deal with, alongside that typical victim complex I was talking about.
But please tell me more about how the M1’s hull armour is uniquely weak /s
I’m sure there aren’t any British/Chinese/French/Israeli/Japanese/Italian players that would disagree whatsoever.
2 Likes
Looking at the win rates for the USA. They have a right.
As I have explained in this post NUMEROUS times. That is untrue.
Uh no. That’s the historical record.
Huh. Clearly significantly worse than the LEO II and the T-series. Because you are doing this on a flat plane and the height differences are crucial.
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.
2 Likes
It’s only vehicle’s fault when US is in question, players are definitely not “guilty”:
4 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
Developer comment
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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?
5 Likes
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
1 Like