I’ll keep this in mind next time you’re wondering why shooting the thickest armor on vehicles doesn’t do anything.
3 Likes
The 2a7v literally has armour, penetration, mobility, FCS. With no trade offs.
“Oh but the 1s faster reload”
I’d much rather have a stronger turret ring than faster reload. Its historically accurate so we don’t need unrealistic reloads.
1 Like
Yeah, so 3BM42 can’t penetrate the 1986 hull of the M1 righ- Oh wait… hmm… It can. Weird. Almost like the US still prioritizes mobility, training and firepower…
2 Likes
LOL this has got to be the dumbest " estimation ever. 3RD Generation D.U with sub 1st gen D.U Hull levels, only necrons could make this garbage up.
Almost like the 1986 tank was using the very first iteration of NATO composite armor on a 55 ton tank while the 2015 tank is using a significantly more advanced and matured iteration of said advanced armor and is literally 12 tons heavier.
1 Like
To even get close to the reload rate of the M1 you have to have an ace crew, reload rate is an insane equalizer when you properly employ the vehicle.
I would ALWAYS prefer a reload rate faster than the enemy no matter what especially due to the nature of ammo RNG in the game.
Also FCS isn’t even modeled in the game and didn’t you say yourself the mobility was essentially the same?
“with no tradeoffs.” Laughable.
2 Likes
Its an artificial buff. I much rather have a historical buff.
Thermals, turret rotation, depression etc… Oh and yes the mobility is almost the same, but the 2a7v has a slightly higher PWR.
What are the significant trade offs of the 2a7v?
Chobham was developed in the 1960s…
Basic google search.
using the very first iteration of NATO composite armor
The US was testing it in the 50s.
1 Like
When was it first IMPLEMENTED on a United States service tank…?
1979, on M1. And M1A1 used the exact same composition, up to the new iteration with 1st generation DU components; which later evolved into 2nd gen, and then into 3rd gen.
Its an artificial buff. I much rather have a historical buff.
If historical is what you want, you’re playing the wrong game.
Thermals, turret rotation, depression etc…
Silly me, I forgot we have ballistic computers, air and wind density computations, the thermal systems are laughable with extremely innacurate entirely white hot tanks, the turret rotation isn’t apart of an FCS system… neither is depression…? FCS is not modeled.
What are the significant trade offs of the 2a7v?
The reload is a huge trade off, it honestly makes the M1 a prefered choice over it’s NATO adversaries.
1 Like
…L {} l_
Right so the M1 has never been produced with hull armor strong enough to resist state of the art APFSDS, why do you think that would suddenly change in 2017?
If this is the typical M1 user I can see why people are screeching for changes.
3 Likes
1 Like
The game should strive to be as realistic as possible unless theres a good reason not to. In this case, (turret ring buff) there isn’t a good reason not to add it.
1 Like
Uh, buddy. The 1979 M1 had this armor array. It didn’t protect it against most shells from the 70s.
1 Like
YOU ARE LITERALLY EVERYTHING we laugh at. The U.S Was working on a British developed armor… in the 1950s?
2 Likes
Chobham was brand new technology in 1979 and it was designed to withstand 115mm shells from T-62, which it successfully did; as well as early 125mm shells such as 3BM5, 3BM9, 3BM15 and 3BM22; which it successfully did as well.
Leaving that aside- 3rd generation Depleted Uranium armor was developed decades after this first Chobham iteration had been fielded for the first time.
The United States doesn’t spend billions on armor that won’t serve its purpose.
The 1979 M1 armor array protected it against:
125mm:
-3BM22 (1976)
-3BM15 (1972)
-3BM9 (1962)
115mm:
3BM28 (1978)
3BM21 (1975)
3BM6 (1967)
3BM4
3BM3
The first Abrams’ armor DID protect it against its contemporary threats.
1 Like
The earliest known composite armour for armoured vehicles was developed as part of the US Army’s T95 experimental series from the mid-1950s. The T95 featured siliceous-cored armour which contained a plate of fused silica glass between rolled steel plates. The stopping power of glass exceeds that of steel armour on a thickness basis and in many cases glass is more than twice as effective as steel on a thickness basis. Although the T95 never entered production, a number of its concepts were used on the M60 Patton, and during the development stage (as the XM60) the siliceous-cored armour was at least considered for use, although it was not a feature of the production vehicles.
Source: Evaluation of Siliceous Cored Armor for the XM60 Tank
You don’t have to be ignorant your entire life.
1 Like