Largest is actually behind the drivers viewports, but, okay.
1 Like
I’m not arguing that, Zy. But again, twitch shooters hit that easy. It’s the curse we live with.
Speaking of that, that image he is using (the original full one) was from my original first argument where I proved that I was right about it.
I think I even under valued how large the turret is. If the red line in this photo is correct, then the lower mantlet is even thicker than I estimated. I got 820mm second time so figure 9% increase to the armor thickness all round, add another 2% to that because the cannon is offset from the center so 11% total which brings our totals to
Inner 183mm
Outer 305mm
Thickness 39mm
Armor under breach 183mm
As it stands, we’re arguing and insulting over minutiae. Again.
I’m tired of repeating this cycle because the bugs aren’t fixed out of the Abrams model.
Why is it seemingly so difficult for them to code new values in?
ok cool, but why are you messuering the back of the turret?
The shell comes out of the turret at 120mm and separates. Why wouldn’t I use 120mm as a scale? I measured the back of the turret because why not. I’m not asking for 305mm all around lmfao. As a 30mm sabot, you’re talking very few pixels to hit a 50mm space. Also where the f do you get off laughing at my attempt to help fix this?
A KE pentrator is as thin as 2-3 cm pointed rod of a dense metal (tungsten or similar) with stabilizing fins on the end.
Thats 0.7 inches up to 1.1inches.
The mirrors on the driver side are as tall if not taller then 5cm and you can fit them perfectly everwhere.
or just one smartphone size.
Like on the left ther eis lots of space to fit a KE round, in the middle and on the right. I mean on right you got two squre blocks a KE pentrator is not bigger then that.
I kek because you post the whole 120mm as if the whole round would be 120mm big.
Its sub caliber amuniotion, tanks dont lob the whole caliber sized round at you.
i know this, i just wanted to be kind after he gave me the bug report
I feel like this would increase the spall, no? as most MBTs at 10.3+ have 400+mm darts that could easily penetrate that, and adding MORE armour there would add more things for the dart to crash into it, generating more fragments, dealing more damage
That’s before taking in the account of the angle of the mantlet, so that number would be much higher in game. Just a quick in-game photo to give you an idea. I believe anywhere but the lower breach would be impenetrable
It’s because they choose what they want and dont want to fix. It’s just like the bug report that got acknowledge showing how Russian T series tanks ufp is over performing by 100+mm of armor which was 3 years ago at this point and still no fix. I honestly not expecting them to fix the Abrams issues for at least another year or two at this point. But for some reason they fixed the 2a7 ufp idk how that was a priority since those tanks were already so dominant.
3 Likes
What report was that? Can you link it please.
Yeah, they’re gonna wait until other nation get something more overpowered or be done with the premium 2S38 which can easily pen that 25mm then finally fix the Abrams when it’s too late. They did the same with HSTV-L, we didn’t get proxy and IRST until Gaijin was done with helis and nerfed their survivability to the ground, a single hit to chassis disables your weapons now.
Ah, I see.
I love that this gets parroted and while I think there is truth to it. Suddenly this line of thinking goes out the window when we discuss Air.
Does it go out the window?
You’re either being facetious or don’t follow air talks about how the US dominates.
US does bad on ground cuz we suck, but do well in Air because of the planes.
Sure doesn’t feel like it when half my US team are base bombing in F-4/5/14/15/16’s.
Is air in the title? No? Then don’t post about it here. This is why nothing ever gets done, because everyone brings up their frustrations about everything else. We’re talking about the state of US ground, stay on topic