To be fair, it’s currently 65mm in spots, that definitely shouldn’t be the case and allows for autocannons to penetrate it.
I personally don’t have too many encounters with autocannons and it also wouldn’t help against 120mm+ APFSDS, but the point still remains that a conversion to volumetric would at least make the turret ring autocannon proof via raw thickness.
LOL! Test drive has all modules unlocked, and keyboards are digital so speed cannot be controlled.
Thanks for confirming no one should take any of your posts here seriously.
Necron admitted to posting lies, guys. Best ignore his posts on this topic.
That would depend on how they implement the turret ring volumetric.
I feel like it could be a monkey’s paw and create weaknesses, just like it did with the Challenger 2 breech rework, where it became thicker in areas, but also thinner in a few select spots.
Test drive only has all modules unlocked if you spawn the tank in the Reference configuration. And even then - it isn’t all the modules, or at least it wasn’t before, only a few select ones.
Reference is the only one available currently, which is all modifications.
I’m fully open to any explaination you might have for my M1 being 2 seconds faster than yours.
To be clear: I am asking for a volumetric fix not because it will magically make it stronger, but because Gaijin will hopefully be forced to fix THIS much bigger issue
Which makes my life living hell when having to fight BMP-2Ms or PUMAs or 2S38s, vehicles that in theory shouldn’t be able to do that much damage to the area yet end up knocking out my crew
I die more to Big Guns then Autocannons, yes, but the Autocannons do enough damage/disable me often enough for it to be considered an annoyance that I would like to be fixed
I love how improving from M774 to M833 would still make it the worst round at the BR
Your M1 is obviously crewed.
I made sure neither my M1 nor Leopard 2A4 were crewed, as to keep the crew factor identical.
You cannot guarantee identical crews on separate tech trees.
So is my Leopard 2A4.
Why not?
150/150 crew points spent with Expert qualification and spaded status for both vehicles.
you want a western vehicle to have something good? Nah only russia gets good stuff
we cant have their winrates drop, they must have unkillable ka50/2 and su25sm3, t80bvm and t90m,2s38 bmp2m
We do need to be careful about this rhetoric because tbf the strongest MBTs aren’t Russian right now
Those belong to the Germans and Swedes
coff coff spall liners
In my opinion obviously.
Meanwhile NATO stuff is correctly superior to the Soviet stuff.
None of the vehicles you listed are unkillable, Russia man.
An openonion I share or else I wouldn’t be saying what I said lol
That it could serve as a point of comparison to see how well the array(s) are modeled in game, and provide an upper limit to the potential effectiveness of said armor since the fact that BRL is likely to be less efficient than HAP-1 / EAP, and so effectively place an upper limit on projected performance of the investigated, potential HAP equipt M1 due to the reduced depth of the array to fit in the enclosed volume. and so further define why it is currently accurate, instead of pointing to earlier versions of a documents and proving that no changes were made even though it was later revised to allow for said occurrence to potentially be implemented.
I’m not even certain that any of the in-game M1’s have similar internal armour composition to the (exported) M1A1 SA or M1150 Breacher.
I don’t think you can place concrete values based on those photo’s.
We probably don’t know which materials are used, in what exact thicknesses, what combination, how they interact with various penetrators or whether any layers were damaged/missing (Russian ERA is only filled with egg cartons -myth).
I do share some sources from the development period of say, the M1A2 or IPM1 as a basis for arguments regarding the M1A2 SEP, but in that case it’s to get across a general picture about why certain aspects are prioritzed and others aren’t.
(Example being the hull armour not being upgraded due to analysis showing it made next to no impact in overall effectiveness of the vehicle).
I know you’re probably not saying it is, but I don’t think a couple of photo’s are a good alternative to modelling armour in War Thunder.
except nato vehicles cant be fully utilized because they get owned by cas spam and have inferior SPAA, for some reason russia gets pantsir when it should just get tor
(and then newest leopards are just acceptable to fight with russian vehicles, but doesnt change the fact russian vehicles are artificially buffed)
good luck killing a ka52 pilot with a few brain cells
you will get either killed by their auto aim 30mm, vikhr, igla or pantsir while trying and even if you damage the ka52 it will just land and repair
Maybe instead of asking for Russia to get something worse we should ask for NATO to get something better?
Even with significant nerfs to the framework (via holes and improperly modelled bits) the new Leo 2A7 and Swedish STRVs are better than the T-90M and T-80BVM. Playing against both Germany and Russia, 9/10 times I’d rather face a T series tank then the Leo, because the T series tanks are super simple to one shot and/or disable while the Leos take some time.
Something every top tier Heli gets just an FYI
And to make it clear; I’m an “American Main”. The US was my starter nation and is still one of my favorite/main nations to play. Of course I play other nations, and I believe there are flaws in the US; but I just want to make it clear because I am sure someone will call me a Ruski lover or something.