Now don’t change it can backlash them even more
That’s the thing.
Either we stay stuck on what we have, and continually try to find sources, or we suggest a rules change.
What are the armor source rules? I haven’t seen them before so tbh I don’t know what the problem would be in this case
TL;DR: Need specific numbers: Exact, estimates, tested munitions from primary sources.
Without them they default to last known information on the tank.
4 Likes
now thing change and Gaijin also need to change worry about backlash? well not changing also backlash as well maybe worse people doing hard work to get document for Gaijin, they should not be ignore.
Can you open up a new bug report for that please?
The current “DU hull armor” bug reports were closed as “not a bug”…
Please include all other sources that were posted here.
You would do us a VERY big favour!
Gaijin does not seem to listen at all!
6 Likes
He’ll still probably say the Ka-52 is clearer lol
The M1A2K and M1A1FEP have E with a dash, which should mean the use of the latest export armor technology without DU.
9 Likes
No, he won’t.
You’ll have to do it yourself or get one of us bug reporters to do it.
He doesn’t look kindly to us Abrams fans for whatever reason.
1 Like
It doesn’t work like that. Aside from weight constraints, there are also size constraints. If you put an 800mm armor array where a 360mm one was, you increase the tank’s length by 440mm which has consequences when you put your tank on a truck, ship, or a cargo plane, and more importantly it limits the driver’s visibility.
Ideally if you have some spare space, you’d want your armor array to be larger, because then there are additional factors contributing to protection. Armor arrays that are longer can be made more survivable (as in, the armor itself could withstand more hits in the same spot), and will have increased protection against HEAT in particular.
That is probably why the Abrams is said to use DU in its hull - the size constraints likely require it to use denser materials to achieve good protection with low volume.
So in conclusion, against KE the variance between LoS thickness and effectiveness can be quite great, but shorter armor arrays do come with their own drawbacks.
I do wonder if the array is thicker than the 360 it is in-game tho. After all, it doesn’t go to the back plate on the x-ray, tho I wonder if that’s a visual bug.
People expect gajin to add DU in the hull when gajin doesnt even add it in the turret cheeks. They use swedish trials export model which doesnt have DU. Its ridiculous
12 Likes
The M1A1HA had the best protection against APFSDS in the world and thanks to the help of the British, the protection against HEAT in the M1A2 was also improved, so the M1A2 was the top notch when it comes to protection. data from Sweden is completely inadequate.
30 Likes
He is one of the most active people regarding the previous Abrams hull bug reports though.
2 Likes
Then why does he continually call Abrams bug reporters trolls?
Jealousy?
1 Like
I have yet to see him call one of the major Abrams hull bug reporters a troll.
Or are you talking about him calling you a troll? Is that it? Because I haven’t seen you provide many sources for the Abrams hull bug reports.
4 Likes
My reports & aid are older.
I left many reports to those I trusted with the info I gathered, that or they spread it to more people.
I see that some of my info gathering appears in his own posts here after years.
Which proofs exactly nothing. I could say the same thing without evidence.
It would seem so.
It would explain basically any max BR mbt added in the past few years of patches, they’ve almost all been either marginal upgrades, sidegrades or de-facto downgrades.
If we recall that the last time Gaijin actually pushed the fold, we got 2A6 which was a vehicle so cracked the reload was nerfed (unnerfed later) to make top-tier somewhat playable. All it did was add maybe 8% more pen vs the existing 2A5, but that seemingly insignificant change was enough to throw everything up in the air for a bit.
So it seems Gaijin currently is trying to avoid, wherever possible at least, majorly pushing forward the capabilities of MBTs.
One thing that’s generally brushed over in all these discussions is that MBT’s made/designed after the Cold War ended, generally aren’t trying to improve their protection against long-rod APFSDS, because the primary threat changed to RPG/IED and other weapons.
Tanks that had been designed in the 1970’s to (primarily, but not exclusively) sit hull-down in entrenched positions in the Fulda Gap, suddenly had a very different type of threat to deal with. They aren’t being designed to tank long rods in a degrees either side of the very front of their upper armour anymore.
Also, the weight of Abrams has exploded since its initial design.
Here Gaijin are saying this is one of their concerns about the feasibility of such modifications.
I would say, at least to my mind, it seems somewhat reasonable to be concerned about the suspension, since many tanks have been crippled by weight creep over their service life.
I’m not an engineer, but I wonder exactly how much a suspension can be improved to accomodate
I recall reading that at least one of the goals of SEP was to replace the electronics with lighter ones, presumably all those weight savings were immediately eaten up with more being jammed in.
If you really want to dive down the rabbithole, you should read posts on forums like Sturgeon’s House and Otvaga2004. Lots of photos and documents posted there.
3 Likes
I do hope that as we find sources, and as they figure out what they do for 2024, that a solution is found for Abrams armor.
All I can say is we must stay level headed no matter what side of this conversation we’re on.
I’ll continue researching Abrams with others, tho they have the sources I shared years ago with the War Thunder community/refound them online on their own.
I’d also love to see Ariete be 550KE protection but that’s off-topic for this thread.
1 Like