I mean they were probably shooting your turret face because the Abrams is fully covered in weakspots to most APFSDS.
Correct but its nice to have the other parts of the survivability onion covered. Again, the M1A2 SEPv2 is 11.7 so it should be in line with tanks like Strv 122B+ and the Leo2a7v.
Obviously- except, right now, many tanks’ “last line of defence” can withstand any shell in the game, while the Abrams’ “last line of defence” can’t even withstand shells found already on 9.7 vehicles.
No idea what happened there or how it could be, but this is the average Abrams experience:
Not to mention the whole center of mass being unrealistically vulnerable to autocanons;
the Abrams is fully covered in weakspots to most APFSDS.
I find this to be true for most soviet vehicles.
Correct but its nice to have the other parts of the survivability onion covered.
This is usually where the vehicle needs to rely more so on it’s other strengths in order to succeed. It has viable armor if it’s employed correctly.
No? The T-80BVM and T-90M are well protected. Even their side profile is well protected because its covered in ERA meaning autocannons (including the HSTV-L) will have trouble penetrating.
Judging by the positions you were not only exposing yourself to enemy fire and being in horrible spots in the first place. The vehicle isn’t meant to take punishing fire like that, you’re also getting zero kills before any of this is happening so I highly doubt this is the average experience when our experiences are vastly different.
Not to mention the whole center of mass being unrealistically vulnerable to autocanons
Looks like he only had one crew member left before death anyway… I wouldn’t use this as an example, especially considering you can do something similar to the T series vehicles as I proved yesterday.
The gunner’s sight, driver’s port and lower plate are all huge weakspots. The two latter can be easily penetrated by 40mm APFSDS.
It has viable turret armour and that’s really it. Other tanks have protected turret armour, protected turret ring, and protected UFP.
Yeah so fight from a berm or only expose when you need to, being in the gunsights of anything is the wrong way to play any vehicle to be quite honest.
If we abided by this logic, then Ariete is as good as Leopard 2A7V.
If we abide by the logic of don’t let yourself get shot for stupid reasons? That should be your number one strategy from the get go. The M1 shouldn’t be invulnerable from the front, in fact it should be quite vulnerable due to the fact that only it’s turret cheeks are designed to withstand heavy punishment.
In other news, people get shot in PvP games.
Turret ring going from 50 unrealistic mm to around 300mm thick won’t be making it “invulnerable”.
Source?
In other news, people get shot in PvP games.
Yeah but you don’t have to put yourself in bad positions like you showed with those screenshots
Turret ring going from 50 unrealistic mm to around 300mm thick won’t be making it “invulnerable”.
Le SEP V3 catalogue you brought up
Source?
Just dunno man, let me look at the tank… hmm… oh… oh really… hmph. OH I SEE. The thickest armor is in the turret cheeks. Wow crazy how it was designed like that.
Everyone knows the M1s are a viable tank and you can do well in it. However, that does not mean its equal to tanks like the 2a7v. I feel like a broken record.
The M1 has advantages over the 2A7V in different areas, they’re not meant to be equal.
So no source, gotcha.
We are talking about the already ingame Abrams tanks here- about making their turret rings volumetric instead of a fake 50mm thick plate.
And even if we were talking about SEPv3, again; mantlet would remain a weakspot, whole center of mass turret ring would remain a weakspot, and UFP would remain a weakspot half the times.
“M1A2 SEPv3 should not be frontally immune”… so tell me; why should any Strv 122, any Leopard 2A7 or any Russian tank be, then?
What advantages does the M1 have over the 2a7v?
“M1A2 SEPv3 should not be frontally immune”… so tell me; why should any Strv 122, any Leopard 2A7 or any Russian tank be, then?
Are… are we playing the same game? Honest question.
Reload, mobility.
Mobility? They’re about the same, the SEPv2 is just as obese as the 2a7v.
Reload? Ok sure.
Yes, so again:
Why can Leopard 2A7s be 670mm KE (and people are fighting to make it 750mm KE), but Abrams can’t have improved hull armor?
Why can Strv 122s be 750mm KE, but Abrams can’t have improved hull armor?
Why can Russian tanks be 620, 720 and 800mm KE… but Abrams can’t have improved hull armor?
It is not a problem for anyone to get improved hull armor- but when it comes to the Abrams, it suddenly becomes an issue.
