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
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.
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
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.
I killed a Kamov 5X with my Abrams round a few months ago. I rarely ever see them.
I got killed by Pantsir exactly once in the last year because I flew in like a drone.
Never got killed by an Igla.
Never got killed by a helicopter’s 30mm gun.
That’s because it isn’t 400mm flat. It’s 400mm volumetric. It’s a complex shape and 400mm is only its absolute thickest spot, they’ve modeled it with volumetric to have varying thicknesses.
If it weren’t volumetric, then it would be 400mm everywhere - but that obviously wouldn’t be accurate, either. It does feel like some of the thicknesses are lower than expected.
Im fully aware that the 400mm block isn’t solid 400mm
hence I admended by post by saying
At the thinnest part, the mantlet should have lower protection in the Armour holes
At the thickest part, the mantlet should have higher protection at the parts with the 400mm breech block
Red = 600mm
Green = 190mm holes
The CR2 mantlet should be volumetric hell. with drastic fluctuation of armour effective from 600mm to 190mm BUT instead nothing actually changed. Still dogshit.
Its just insulting. This goes without saying that depending on some questionable images of CR2 turrets, Gaijin may eventually nerf the mantlet more depending on how the images are interpreted.
Regardless, CR2 is shit and this post is about Abrams stuff so I digress.
I meant Volumetric hell in as the mantlet should be trolly to properly pen due to the design of the breech block. The green holes I showed are small and if the CR2 is moving, accurately penning the weak spots would be hard as shells would just be adsorbed by the 600mm parts.
Not physically Volumetric/non-volumetric shenanigans.
