Why is there a colossal gap in the entire frontal composite layout of the type 10 or large chunks of Chobham missing from the challenger 2s, and not top mention the complete lack of comp in the ariete’s hull
3BM70, possibly (DU turret cheeks were meant to stop KE rounds.)
Derailing the conversation, typical.
Just because we want a fictional weakspot fixed does NOT mean we want gaijin to neglect other tanks.
3 Likes
Random non-point that you have 0 way of actually knowing and the best evidence you have for that is “i think, maybe”
I have made countless posts on Reddit and the Forums attempting to have those issues corrected as well, so…?
I am simply pointing out other similar situations in which those MBTs have far more glaring issues than the Abrams and yet perform better in matches
Yeah it sounds like you’re delusional, the M1 cannot withstand any of those shots and it was never designed/upgraded to do so.
Uh, no? The US definitely focuses on training more than relying on armor, this is a well known fact. There’s a reason why they stopped upgrading the armor.
Does that suddenly mean the Abrams SHOULD have a 50mm turret ring that doesn’t exist?
2 Likes
It 100% was.
2017 the SepV3 was released, with upgraded DU turret and hull armor, even NECRONS of all people agrees with that (if he hadn’t blocked me, i’d tag him here)
1 Like
M1A2 SEP: 62.2 tons
M1A2 SEPv2: 64.6 tons
M1A2 SEPv3: 67 tons
I guess the crews just got a little overweight along the way.
Jokes aside, we have literal official General Dynamics documents specifying SEPv3 was upgraded to be frontally immune to any potential threat it could possibly face; and while it is not so clearly stated in SEPv2’s cases, it was certainly implied back in the day.
6 Likes
If it means waiting your turn while other MBTs are payed attention to then yes, for the time being
You see, Germany should NOT have 670mm instead of 750mm KE, because they suffer.
U.S on the other hand definitely deserves to have its whole center of mass be an artificial 50mm thick weakspot.
2 Likes
Why does there have to be turns? This isn’t a total war game. Gaijin can afford to fix multiple issues.
3 Likes
What am I reading.
2A7 and 122B+ get up armoured UFP. Why can’t the Abrams get its varients which buffs its UFP?
I don’t recall seeing anyone in this thread asking for that. can’t say much
If the Turret ring was 220mm Volumetric it would still easily be penned by any other MBT APFSDS. Literally no one is asking for the turret ring to be 200000mm of HHRHA. I don’t know how many times it has to be repeatedly shoved into people’s faces. Having the Turret ring be 200mm would make it much more resilient to SPAA cannon spam while any 105mm cannon can still easily pen it.
1 Like
And here we are, years after the edition of the base versions of the Challenger 2, M1A2, Type 10 and Ariete and yet none of their issues have been fixed unless deemed ‘game-breaking’
It 100% was.
How can you design a tank to withstand ammo that hasn’t even been produced yet? Like you’re just lying to people. The M1 is never going to be able to withstand all threats being shot at it, if it was there wouldn’t have been losses in the past.
it was upgraded with DU/hull… oh almost 8 years ago.
At least try.
1 Like
Competitive victim moment.
“No, MY tank has it WORSE than YOURS! Fix MY tank FIRST because I need it MORE! There are not enough resources or time for everyone, and MY vehicle deserves fixes MORE than yours! We are NOT together in this, this is not “us” versus Gaijin, it’s ME versus YOU!”
4 Likes
And still you haven’t given me a reason why that means we should ignore the abrams situation. Gaijin can fix both, but they won’t. Simple as.
1 Like
M1A2: 62 tons
M1A2 SEPv3: 67 tons
“while not stated clearly” “was implied” “this document”
Right so. Merely 100 posts ago we pointed out that US mains want an invincible MBT. Their response was no, we don’t. Now you’re telling me that the current iteration of the vehicle the US uses is " absolutely impervious to any potential threat it could possible face"
No matter how you spin it the M1 is not going to withstand a cruise missile or a bomb being dropped on it. It’s also not going to fare well against FPV drones or the usual tandem RPG being fired from above. What you’re doing is using company jargon that is usually presented to the government in an attempt to squeeze them out of money and spinning it as the tank is now currently invincible. This is just fundamentally false.
1 Like