Well I am bored, enjoyed an evening of pissing off american mains, enjoy your beloved abrams lads :P
The tank performs fine is the overarching point from what I’ve seen, but players don’t want to admit they might not be great at the game and in most cases are asking for cop out solutions that wouldn’t actually formulate any solutions just provide bandaid fixes for their inability to play well.
1 Like
When it comes to heavy composite modules; which leaves the UFP (at most angles), turret ring and mantlet as consistent weakspots.
We are talking about ingame threats here, AKA other main guns’ APFSDS shells, not about FPV drones or cruise missiles…
German mains when they want their tank to go from 670mm KE to 750mm KE: “it is reasonable.”
American players when they want their artificial 50mm thick weakspot to be corrected: “YOU JUST WANT TO BE INVINCIBLEEEE?!'!”
I reiterate:
1 Like
Nobody said this, btw. I said it has upgraded DU armor to defend against KE penetrators.
Nobody is disagreeing with that.
You’re arguing with yourself right now.
Because armor isn’t developed for one specific thing? It’s meant to last before the next upgrade program, because they… cost money?
You could at least argue without showing us that you’re very biased against the abrams getting a respectable armor upgrade
1 Like
We are talking about ingame threats here, AKA other main guns’ APFSDS shells, not about FPV drones or cruise missiles…
If you don’t believe there are weapons in this game that are similar in capability to cruise missiles and FPV drones, I IMPLORE you to look at the aircraft weapons selection at top tier.
German mains when they want their tank to go from 670mm KE to 750mm KE: “it is reasonable.”
American players when they want their artificial 50mm thick weakspot to be corrected: “YOU JUST WANT TO BE INVINCIBLEEEE?!'!”
Yeah that’s cool and all, but that doesn’t change the fact that you go from saying you don’t want an invincible tank to “well this brochure says it’s invincible”
1 Like
No, a 3BM60 shell has no similar capabilities to a Tomahawk missile.
The 2015 heavy composite modules should be imprevious to potentially contemporary APFSDS threats =/= bEiNg InViNcIbLe To NuKeS
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.
we have literal official General Dynamics documents specifying SEPv3 was upgraded to be frontally immune to any potential threat it could possibly face;
specifying SEPv3 was upgraded to be frontally immune to any potential threat it could possibly face
any potential threat it could possibly face
Sounds to me like you’re not reading the thread.
Because armor isn’t developed for one specific thing? It’s meant to last before the next upgrade program, because they… cost money?
Tell me smart guy, if armor is still the end all be all of tank protection, why is it being phased out for active protection systems? Is it maybe because armor cannot keep up with the technological protection of munitions…? Crazy right…?
1 Like
Im gonna assume you’re a troll, lol. Nobody is talking about protection against cruise missiles and FPV drones. You took it there, and nobody said the abrams would survive them.
Anyway…
Another day,
Another American/Abrams-related thread that gets nuked by anti-U.S trolls.
Since you didn’t seem to get the idea, I specifically elaborated:
1 Like
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Armor is NOT being phased out. The SEPv3 has TROPHY AND armor upgrades. The challenger 2 didn’t fill the turret cheeks with air just because an APS was put on the tank. Sure, APS is the new innovation, however tanks are still very much armored.
1 Like
No, a 3BM60 shell has no similar capabilities to a Tomahawk missile.
No one said that, but there are definitely missiles in this game that can attack and kill the M1 from the front which means that… it’s not “frontally immune to any potential threat it could possibly face”.
The 2015 heavy composite modules should be imprevious to potentially contemporary APFSDS threats =/= bEiNg InViNcIbLe To NuKeS
You can’t just pull a paper out of your ass claiming to be “frontally immune to any potential threat it could possibly face” then turn around and act like you’re not specifically asking for that.
1 Like
Yeah I think you’re just delusional, I brought up a handful of munitions that the M1 can’t withstand and you shrugged it off, now that we’re claiming the SEPV3 is virtually impenetrable from the front you can’t just backtrack it and act like no one said it. It was definitely posted.
1 Like
Tell me, smart guy; if armor is being phased out, why do tanks get exponentially heavier and heavier every year?
APS is not a lone tool to rely on, it’s an ADDITIONAL measure against some threats.
Leopard 2A7V weighs 66 tons, from Leopard 2A6’s 59 tons.
M1A2 SEPv3 weighs 67 tons, from M1A2 SEPv2’s 64 tons.
Challenger 3 weighs 66 tons, from Challenger 2’s 62 tons.
T-90M weighs 51 tons, from T-90A’s 46 tons.
Etc, etc, etc. I guess armies just like to add ballast to their MBTs.
1 Like
Even early study proposed improved armor package technologies from the late 1990s specified KE protection increases of 35%; add 25 years of R&D and it only takes the slightliest bit of common sense to deduce that the armor has, indeed, evolved enough to provide such levels of protection in the past 30 years after adding multiple tons of it.
Because we aren’t talking about tomahawk missiles and tactical nukes lol, We’re talking about DU armor to defend agaisnt KINETIC PENETRATORS.
1 Like
Kinetic penetrators are not the only threat that tanks face. Stop lying.
And who exactly said it was the case…?
Stop lying.
I think you misunderstand the concept of phasing something out. They’re still going to armor tanks no one was saying that they weren’t. I applaude you from coming to that conclusion but the idea of the future is that vehicles are going to protected more so by their APS systems than they would their armor. This is because the munition will always prevail in the end. The armor is not enough to adequately protect the vehicle anymore. Every vehicle is going to eventually be vulnerable to new threats. That’s why they’re developing an end all be all solution of destroying the munition instead of merely protecting against it.
I never said it was? You’re coping because you were wrong about the abrams never being upgraded to face better darts than 3BM5
1 Like