Yeah, the shots that really just hit the underside of the turret should show up like that, but the shots that (somehow) directly hit the turret ring by a >400mm APFSDS would create more spall than currently. Of course, current turret ring shots still one-shot most of the time, so it’s not much of a change.
yall forget that the mantlet is extremely weak as well
It’s modeled wrong, at the lowest point it should be around 183mm and around 305mm at the highest point of the chamfer of the lower mantlet with an overall thickness of 39mm.
peep my following posts from here
Yes.
i say everyone be forced to use tank sim view. in ground R.B
what do you even mean? the M1A2 has more penetration than the T-90M does, and about the same amount of weakspots, given a little bit more but that is just accurate
The M1A2 has barely more pen (~50mm) for massively more weakspots and no spall liners (only in game, they should have spall liners like they do IRL).
1 Like
yea I know thats why I said they forgot :P (sorry for late reply)
How is this even close to being similar? You can hit ANYWHERE under the turret mantlet and do serious damage. Even people with terrible aim can one hit knock out an abrams.
This is ALL I’m asking for that would fix the Abrams
2 Likes
I’ve made a support ticket, if anyone would like to chime in, that’d be great.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HKkYw8JXaj5Y
Source?
The acknowledged bug report about all of the Abrams missing their spall liners
Acknowledged doesn’t mean valid or credible, it means the technical mod passed it to devs for a look to determine if it is. Also, war thunder is not a credible source of military data.
2 Likes
It means that the information is correct, as nearly every single acknowledged bug report never gets overturned. In fact, the only time I’ve heard of acknowledged bug reports getting overturned is when Gaijin just makes up some BS - like the many Challenger, Leclerc, Abrams, Ariete, merkava, etc. bug reports.
It literally does not. It means its good enough for war thunder. big fucking difference.
4 Likes
As Smin1080p has explained on numerous occasions, acknowledged merely means the information is sent to the developers for them to review. I’m gonna go on a limb and say the developers are going to discard that bug report of yours because it’s lacking any valid proof to support your case, and numerous other sources prove the contrary.
Oh sweet summer child.
5 Likes
Did you miss the “when Gaijin just makes up some BS - like the many Challenger, Leclerc, Abrams, Ariete, merkava, etc. bug reports,” part?
1 Like
So you have no argument for the abrams spall liners besides the idea that gaijin MIGHT, MAYBE, PERHAPS implement them in the near future? With a bug report that has numerous counter documentation that show the abrams doesn’t have spall liners? And you sandbag the eventual disappointment by saying that gaijin won’t implement them because of ‘some BS’?
This is just grasping at straws.
5 Likes
No one really knows, in the CATTB project, they did use spall liners, that’s an experimental unit before the A2. It’s possible it’s built into the composite armor but we will never know for sure
The only evidence about the Abrams not having spall liners is basically just “I can’t see them from the crew compartment, so they don’t exist, and obviously there is only one type of spall liner in existence.” Either that or “this one computer program says that there aren’t spall liners in the crew compartment based off of poor assumptions and a spall liner definition that excludes non-curtain spall liners.”
Should I not, especially after seeing what Gaijin has done the past year regarding the Abrams, Ariete, Merkava, 2A7V, Leclerc, Challenger 2/3, etc.?
2 Likes