He also responded to a thread about the fox in which he proposed that no scout (light) tanks should be able to penetrate an MBT so I wouldn’t take him too seriously
290mm LOS (the estimate calculation comes from @SPANISH_AVENGER) should be capable to withstand such rounds.
2 Likes
Right so you don’t have an academic basis for this calculation so it’s disregarded.
Cool strawman to deny any type of solution to over a year of low win rates, as this comes reasonably before the clickbaits.
Go have a circlejerk on your favorite vehicle instead, your contribution to this discussion is the disregarded thing here.
And say that gaijin buffs the Abrams to be frontally impervious to any round below 120mm APFSDS, what then is the point of playing support vehicles at top tier
If it were to be correctly modelled? It most definitely would.
It is physically 220-300mm thick; that APFSDS penetrates 171mm at most; therefore, it would.
Underperforming means its technical capabilities are worse than they would be and should be if it were correctly modelled; not “having poor statistical performance”.
Gaijin takes official pride on this game’s vehicle depictions being faithful replicas of their real life selves, and the developers, as well as other staff members, have always clarified, as well as the official webpage, that the goal is to achieve maximum accuracy, and that they would never manipulate purposefully the capabilities of a vehicle.
Type 10’s steering is completely messed up because it’s a bug, not because it’s a “creative liberty”; because there’s no reason at all why this tank specifically and alone would purposefully be modelled with broken mobility.
You have one of the best rounds and reload rates. You also have adequate armor and mobility. Trust me buddy it’s not the vehicle that’s the issue here.
3 Likes
someone needs to pop the balloon of an ego you have regarding your seeming occupation as a US main, We are having a discussion that you are intent on derailing.
I guess that means you think Leopard 2A7V, Strv 122B+, Strv 122B PLSS, Strv 122A, T-80BVM, T-90M, etc, etc… should have the same armor as Leopard 2A5, T-80B and T-72A, respectively?
Or is being frontally imprevious to light fire only an issue when it comes to the Abrams?
Support vehicles are not meant or suppossed to engage MBTs frontally and come victorious with ease, and MBTs shouldn’t be artificially nerfed to allow it. Support vehicles are meant to, well, SUPPORT, by scouting, flanking to hit the enemy from the sides and from behind, etc.
2 Likes
It is physically 220-300mm thick
Unless you have documentation reflecting this, it’s merely a physical modeling error in game.
Underperforming means its technical capabilities are worse than they would be and should be if it were correctly modelled; not “having poor statistical performance”.
I’m more inclined to use the word improperly modeled due to the fact that when something is correct it is modeled incorrectly, but when the vehicle performs in game which is a verb, it performs excellent, you even said this.
Gaijin takes official pride on this game’s vehicle depictions being faithful replicas of their real life selves
Mad funny, I’ll keep that in mind for when they erroneously name the next M1 the A3M1 like they did the M1IP. Or randomly change things due to merely wanting to.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
And even if it were a physical modelling error, since the shape is mostly correct, all it would take for a fix, even if half-assed, would be to switch the piece from 50mm thickness into the volumetric damage model. Even then it would be 280+mm thick at most points.
2 Likes
Every MBT at top tier should have a way of disabling or injuring them through fire from 30mm+ calibre modern autocannons, this currently is the case for all of them in game but is worse for some, the abrams being far from the worst affected
1 Like
Why should they? If they aren’t in real life, why should further weakspots be artificially created so that a 65 ton Main Battle Tank is frontally vulnerable to a 20 ton Infantry Fighting Vehicle that’s not meant to face them frontally and let alone come victorious like that? There’s a reason why many such vehicles are equipped with ATGMs.
In most cases, it is the case only when it’s warranted: if Challenger 2 has a weak LFP in real life, it is bound to have it ingame too, it is inevitable. In the case of the Abrams, the weakspot is artificially created.
4 Likes
Due to the way this turret ring is shaped, you would still suffer significant spalling and internal damage even from the lighter rounds. Changing it to volumetric would not see a significant increase in protection.
If they aren’t in real life
They are. In fact you can easily disable/kill an MBT by destroying some of it’s sensors. There was a huge circlejerk about the Bradley doing this to a T-90 just recently.
1 Like
The thickness would go from 50 mere mm that can be penetrated by anything in the game, to a good 220-300mm thickness that no autocanon, not even 2S38’s, would be able to penetrate; that’s a significant increase in protection.
1 Like
Sensors and optic damage are not modelled ingame except for the commander sight/periscope (the smoke and dust of the autocanons do blind optics though), and even then, it’s a different matter to a tank being blown up frontally by an autocanon through an artificial weakspot.
1 Like
We do have eyes, however. It doesn’t take much more to see this, and the report was successfully acknowledged and passed to the developers already.
1 Like
For the sake of Balancing of high tiered IFVs like the KF41, which has a tough time enough with the dogshit 30mm, it’s a chore to breach snipe let alone do anything to most MBTs frontally while having comparable mobility to most MBTs, making flanking an unreliable strategy on a whole host of maps, I am not suggesting you should be able to completely knock out an Abrams with frontal autocannon fire, what I am suggesting is the capability to effectively defend yourself by hitting the breach/turret ring/driver
Are you suggesting that 65 ton Main Battle Tanks should be artificially nerfed so that a light support IFV can kill them frontally with a tiny autocanon because… apparently that’s balance?
Well, that’s currently what’s happening and what shouldn’t happen if modelling was correct.
Barrel damage should be made consisted once again (suddenly barrels will bounce off 120mm shells since a few months ago, that’s weird) and they could even implement optic damage simulations (cracks, etc) to hinder visibility upon being hit, the same way they modelled commander periscope destruction… but artificial nerfs are NEVER the solution to anything.
1 Like