LOL, it’s 83°, 3° more AOA than in your picture. US mains will do anything to prove they’re right.
Anyway, this is how it really looks in a real battle. Tell me another lie.
1 Like
You know the angle of attack (AOA) is measured from the perpendicular axis of the armor. Every T-series tank is shorter than the Abrams, so on flat ground, an 80° shot is impossible.
You can’t even do maths.
3 Likes
So I was the one who original pointed out that the Tank used on the Pen image for the Abrams was the 292. I am back to kind of help put this to rest. I used Chat to bring me up all the info it could from Media to actual battle reports on the Abrams spanning the Gulf war to the Ukraine war. In the American battle field reports especially 73 easting showed that the Abrams Performed very well against Russian tank mainly the T-72 at the time, then in the Ukraine war aside from the one being destroyed due to anti-tank tech not by Russian tanks the Abrams has been destroyed, But against the T-80’s and T-90s it has performed well. Being hit and surviving with minimal damage but taking out the mentioned tank with one round. Now some have compered the Leopard 2 to the Abrams and I am here to debunk some of that to the only difference is the Leo has better fuel economy and maintaince is easier. Also the Abrams gun is slightly better. So all in all yes the Abrams in game needs fixed But the fix would actually propel it to higher Br’s cause it is actually a good tank by all available information even from Russian reports.
If anyone has an Issues with this I would like to know cause I am not trying to be bias cause I am doing quite the opposite I am saying the Abrams is fine where it is at and that yeah it could have some changes to make it more realistic but at the end of the day it’s a game not real life with lives on the line so be a little easier on Gaijin they are not making tanks for the real world but for a game and they have very limited info also they have done very well for a game to make it realistic.
the M256 is a licensed produced Rh-120 L44 which means that it would be roughly on par with the Leopard gun
Yes but what I meant is the Shell we use is slightly better. Also is that you only Issue with my statement if you have more do inform me and I will respond to the best of my knowledge.
U guys are missing things on the abrams armor
The M1 at 10.7 even the manlet get pen from 3BM42, it pen both side of the manlet(the closer to the gun shield the worse it is) and at what range? 1500M
Abrams armor truely suck for its BR
the A1 isnt much better either the left side of the manlet(or right if u r using it) still get pen within the 0-1050M range using the same 3BM42 shell
these thing face the T90-A at 11.3 yall
1 Like
Did you read my actually statement? I even said if the Abrams was to real specs only the Leo could hurt it.
No no, giajin has actually said point blank that it wouldn’t, and it comes down to the fact that ERA isn’t an actually modeled thing, so an era defeating tip with long rod penetration doesn’t reflect in game.
We don’t have 24hr pen simulators to run calculations in .01 seconds when someone shoots a tank in game lol.
But it’s not for gameplay, gaijin just said point blank it makes no difference, it does, just not in their game because how they’ve built armor vs round. Their explanation from what I remember mentioned nothing about gameplay balancing and only that it wouldn’t affect penetration.
That’s test drive, not a real battle. Not the same or reliable, everyone knows this man.
I think he’s tying gun and shell together as one package. Which if done this way, it is better. The round performs better out do the same gun. Some of it still having to do with material properties as well which isn’t modeled in game.
Hello, my name is Type 90, I’m calling down from BR 11.3 to tell you that im pennable everywhere from the front (Besides Volumetric shenanigans that happen on every tank with every ammo, agms and even bombs) and somehow I’m completely fine there, there’s rarely complaints about that but somehow people claim I should go up in BR
2 Likes
Even with all that M1A1 is still better than T-90A.
well its still better than protection analysis.
Im convinced that u trolling me rn
In that case I think that if anti-ERA tipped rounds were ever made necessary, they should be represented accurately.
I don’t understand what you mean. Anytime you shoot someone in War Thunder you’re running a simulation. Though that doesn’t mean the simulation is accurate.
I mean I feel like you could just have the KE protection provided by the ERA reduced by X% for whatever round. Or something like that I’m not a game designer.
I like how No one has had a major issue with my Statement. I did a good thing then:)
No, T-90A is probably the saddest vehicle around 11.0.
1 Like
Go on YouTube and look up simulation for like m829a2 vs relikt. Era isn’t modeled like this. It’s just essentially made as a wall with so much thickness. Then using whatever formula giajin uses called like lans oberman calculation. They determine if the angle and rod would pen that flat value at whatever range.
There’s no actual modeling of era or material properties, so you don’t really get an effect through anti era tips and etc.
There’s a big difference between those sims and what we have and those simple 30 second sims take like 20-40 hours to render. That’s what I’m meaning. There’s other things they could probably do, but that’s all I’m referring to. Which is why they say it makes no difference, because they way they calculate armor and pen has little to do with material properties and armor effect.
Similar reason to why all darts are equalized as essentially being tungsten penetrators for gameplay purposes. Which helps spall lines tanks A LOT, and nations which use DU lose out on a large secondary effect of their round it’s a lot to code for, with the era and anti era tips being a lot more to model than the DU, but a lot of coding for either.
I know ERA isn’t modeled correctly in game. But my point is that there are varying degrees of realism in War Thunder and you can work around things not being simulated 100% accurately.
Like I was saying darts with anti-ERA tips could have their penetration reduced by 50% less (as an example) when hitting ERA or something. War Thunder has many workarounds to give the illusion of an accurate simulator so I don’t see why we can’t have one here.
Ok I heard you. Then hear me out: T72b at 10.3 has giant weakspots, poor mobility, no commander fire control, no thermals, no survivability. I hereby propose it to be lowered to 9.7 to make it viable.
You’re at a tier where anyone has to aim at weakspots to kill anything, except light tanks. You have to aim for gun breeches, lfps. Everyone does. The only thing that makes a big difference at this BR is mobility, reload speed, survivability. Abrams has all of them. 6.5 default reload is insane, mobility is good for the BR, survivability is what you would expect from a nato tank (lfp shots sometimes not killing the tank for instance). Also using obj 292 to see armor stats is just trolling at this point.
Trust me I am grinding USSR tanks 10.3 right now, thinking they were beasts, believe me having survivability, mobility and good reload is way better than some ERA and a better round.
none of these people care, they are russian mains who don’t care about balance. everything you said was said 7 years ago