As excellent as it is, it is still underperforming in the strictest sense of the word
So it’s improperly modeled like 90% of the game, not so much underperforming because the tank still does well.
I think you misunderstand the trade offs when it comes to the Type 90 and the M1. The game is designed around the idea of allowing each nation to have their own edges and differences when it comes to expressly similar vehicles (See different Shermans running different armor compositions, ammo, .50s etc etc) and in reality all of these top tier tanks are the same exact shit. Because this is a video game and by no means a simulator there’s a lot of creative liberties taken. This is why the M1 has one of the best reloads in the game for MBTs while also having some of the best ammo.
With that being said, none of the top tier vehicles are noob friendly when you consider that unless you know the weakspots you’re going to run into significant issues time and time and time again purely because of the way the game functions. 80% of this game is knowledge and by not being well read you are at a disadvantage. This creates a fundamentally non noob friendly environment.
I mean I also penetrated it’s lower plate from 200m away and ammo racked it so I still don’t get what your point is when at the end of the day these MBTs can also get outplayed by IFVs from the front.
Like dude if you want an undeadable murica machine just say so lmao
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.
1 Like
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.
2 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.
3 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.
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
