It would reduce auto cannons from getting through the turret ring. Of course its not going to stop 120mm+ APFSDS.
While im sure there are more Abram premium noobs asking for those things, the main things are Turret Ring and fuel bulkhead.
I’ve seen people say that the hydraulic pump is in the wrong place, but im not following that.
So what?
Yeah the vehicles that are designed to be played close in can exploit your tank close in? insane right?
The problem lies within the player, not the vehicle.
What? Thats not even an argument lol.
The vehicle’s ring is 220+mm thick in real life.
It is 50mm thick ingame.
The problem lies on the vehicle.
Tanks are vulnerable to close in attacks in virtually any setting and scenario.
Fun fact, those tanks I mentioned don’t need to be close to exploit the Abrams turret ring weakspot.
crazy how russian tanks are virtually immune to damn near every top tier round in the game, if you dont hit weak spots… but fixing the U.S Tanks i suddenly a problem.
So should these vehicles be incapable of dealing any damage to the front of an MBT?
Yes because they’re not supposed to. The Abrams should have volumetric turret.
This is very simple:
In War Thunder:
-Tanks are modelled to be as accurate as possible.
-If a tank’s modelling is wrong, it must be reported.
-If it is reported, it is eventually fixed.
So why.
Should.
Abrams.
Be.
Any.
Different?
Fixes for every tank are fine; but when it comes to the Abrams, suddenly it’s either “it wouldn’t change anything”, or “it would make it too good”, or whatever.
How does this even work?
Found the issue. These vehicles can most definitely deal significant damage to MBTs from the front IRL. Whether it be disabling systems and sensors, delivering mobility kills or in some cases full on frontal penetration. The MBT is susceptible to autocannon fire from a variety of calibers. It’s ignorant to think otherwise.
Keeping the Abrams unrealistic to give 10.0 IFVs a chance at killing an Abrams is crazy btw.
As always:
Yeah except the main issue here is that most people are just asking for fluff or erroneous changes. The vehicle already performs fine I don’t see how giving it another 150mm of turret ring armor is going to change that make it any better.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the point is significantly more insane.
What did I misunderstand here?
Then those possibilities should be implemented through the addition of new mechanics; just like they implemented commander periscope destruction, they could do something similar for gunner optics. Mobility kills are already the case (tracks, idler/sprocket wheels), etc.
Depends on the model, and depends on the spot- and the Abrams’ turret ring is not the case.
That MBTs are frontally vulnerable to autocannon fire just not in the same way they’re vulnerable to your typical APFSDS round.