The UFP gets penetrated a lot ingame; but, theorically, in a perfect LOS angle, it isn’t.
Because the trade off is the better reload and ammo in some cases while also still maintaining exceptional survivability. This isn’t a hard concept.
1 Like
Yeah, 488 is a far cry from 600 lmao.
I don’t think that hull estimation is accurate- in the late 1990s, a 35% KE increase was already achieved on a package that was supposedly not implemented; by 2015, it is safe to assume that the implemented package is a newer technology with better capabilities than that late 1990s’ package, and Necron’s image doesn’t even reach that 35% increase on the first place.
At VERY MINIMUM, it should be 500mm KE. (370 x 1.35 = 500), and that’s if we assume the package SEPv3 installed on its hull was the one developed in the late 1990s and not any newer technology.
So what? That’s Necron’s estimate, not mine or anyone else’s.
According to Russian Intel sources we have yet to share. This isn’t any evidence.
Sounds like spitballing to me fella
1 Like
Remember the threat United States could potentially face at most is 3BM60 and 3BM59. The United States does not design its armor against DM53 or DM73; but against these Russian munitions, further making the 600mm KE estimate make even more sense.
1 Like
You are clueless
1 Like
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_