This just in. Historically accurate tank models = unfair
8 Likes
That’s not the point every tech tree has prototype vehicles. The issue is not prototype vehicles existing. The point is an extremely small number of T80bs got tested with thermal and never went into active service with them… Yet the tech tree mass produced and serviced T80b receives thermals that only 2-3 T80bs had in limited testing.
2 Likes
Then how is this possible?
11 Likes
IS-7? Obj. 279?
Abrams UFP and turret ring are gimme shots that don’t exist on most tanks. It’d be a trade off. Oh no! You might have to aim anywhere but the massive LFP. The amount of easy shots on the Abrams is unfair. ESPECIALLY because it isn’t modeled accurately.
13 Likes
How is that any different than the IPM1 getting M900 that entered low rate production as it was already getting phased out and rebuilt into M1A2s?
1 Like
Glad to see you & Count on our side & not threatening to tantrum.
On the way toward accuracy.
Ammunition is not a tank. I’ll hit you with your own medicine, BadOpinionHaver!
1 Like
What information do you guys have in regards to the Abrams turret ring? It should be modeled as volumetric armor, and I think I have photographic evidence of hulls in production facilities that show that this piece of armor is in fact not hollow, and should be volumetric. Additoonally, testing penetrations though the turret ring with low caliber rounds at long range, like BMP-2M APFSDS, in some situations the shell penetrates the outside of the ring, but is stopped by the next layer of the ring, however, a gap on the inside of Gaijin’s 3D turret ring model allows spalling from the FIRST penetration to somehow enter the fighting compartment and kill crew.
5 Likes
M900 was used in the Gulf War by IPM1s.
@Count_Trackula
Object 279 at its BR has center-line hull weakspot at all angles.
1 Like
It’s a huge difference. M1IPs used M900 in combat in the 1st gulf war. On top of that they were held in reserve (with M900 being their main round) until around 2000-2001 and were subsequently upgraded to the M1A1. The T80b legitimately only received thermals in 1-3 examples that never went to active service yet the tech tree T80b has them.
15 Likes
Well, I don’t have any real values or specifics for the turret ring, though the UFP should be shattering darts. They actually had that on test server for a bit. They got rid of that real quick. XD
I’m specifically talking about the LFP that has in fact received improved armor over the years. Yet Gaijin wants to lie and give us completely untrue reasons for them not following their own supposed rules and guidelines.
"We’re going to use the obsolete and outdated license to say something that isn’t remotely true. By the way, this incorrect data is going to be used to put a limit on your tank that we’ve never imposed on any other vehicle with experimental features or status.
Also, we’re going to tell you that the suspension was never improved. Even though there are official documents, easily found, that show the suspension has in fact been improved multiple times over the life of the Abrams tank, especially in its heavier A2 configuration.
We’re also going to claim that the armor couldn’t have been improved while ignoring that DU inserts are more dense and actually take up less volume.
Oh, and if you were hoping for M829A3 to offset us denying your documented and historically accurate lower front plate buff, we’re going to tell you that it wouldn’t help you at all. Never mind that it was designed to defeat ERA, a feature that is often broken and overperforming. Giving you a method of dealing with this wouldn’t help you in the tiniest bit.
Merry Christmas, with love from our undisclosed decision making office in Moscow!"
-Gaijin Entertainment (but not really, this is obviously a satiric mocking of their laughable decision and excuses behind it)
21 Likes
Right, I agree with you on all those points. I’ve been following all your posts since the bug report and I thought about somehow reaching out to you guys about the turret ring too, and I saw you mentioned it in a reply a little while ago so thought I’d bring it up.
Personally, I’d love to see the lower front plate accurately modeled, however, to me the real achilles heal to this vehicle is the turret ring. I mean, basically any anti-aircraft at top tier can rake your crew in a single burst through the turret ring, and then of course vehicles like the 2S38 with the APHE and the BMP-2M with high RoF APFSDS. It shouldn’t die that way, it should actually be an extremely well protected element of the vehicle the way the turret ring seats inside of it, as well as that upper front plate section aft of the driver’s hatch being volumetric and getting thicker from top to bottom
If you guys decide to make a different bug report for the turret ring let me know. I’ve found some pictures that I think prove that this piece of armor is not cutaway on the bottom. (Also Gaijin’s 3D designers seem to agree with me considering they made the bottom of this piece flat, yet didn’t make it volumetric)
I think if the lower front plate is fixed, and the turret ring is fixed, it would actually be a fairly decently protected vehicle in the front. If the lower front plate is fixed and the turret ring is not, it will help with poorly placed shots but it won’t make an enormous world of difference
3 Likes
Yeah…well could you imagine the fit from the guy who claims an accurate and documented upgrade to the Abrams frontal hull armor is “unfair” if we had the infamous Pz. IV kill zone on the Abrams slightly improved?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/18q7us0/m1_abrams_vs_superior_german_engineering/
4 Likes
Watching that video a few hours ago is actually what made me go knto the game and do some protection analysis for that 50mm turret ring/upper front plate section with some IFV cannon rounds. When I played with the engagement ranges, I saw that sometimes, autocannon rounds could penetrate the exterior through this plate, but then the shell gets stopped by the next layer of armor inside the turret ring… what was weird though, is the spalling from the first penetration continued traveling and phased through whatever stopped the round from fully penetrating.
So… in addition to the fact that this piece of armor is improperly modeled, we also have some sort of error in regards to the collision of the turret armor and the hull armor inside the turret ring, allowing spalling to continue traveling into the tank after only penetrating the outer layer of the armor.
1 Like
Maybe because it’s been confirmed over and over again that ammo is balancing tool. And IPM1 actually used M900.
Thermals shouldn’t be.
T80U getting thermals, because T80UM had them is the same as 2A4 getting 3rd gens, because 2PL had them.
They are completely different versions of the vehicle and it makes no sense for one to get equipment, because other had it.
7 Likes
This is weak rage bait.
4 Likes
Just rename T-80U to T-80UM. 1 letter
2 Likes
Sure.
That one letter is still missing from T80U ingame, so it has no reason to have thermals.
It’s not too critical. The game has a number of tanks and planes with incorrect names.
I don’t think it’s a stumbling block that 1 letter is missing. You can rename the tank, but it’s not very important.
I remember a dozen little things with inaccuracies in the names in the game
2 Likes
Except all of those aren’t protos but are test beds or vehicles that fully worked but were cut due to budgets, or evolved into something else