We just need to have some GDLS dude print up a Brochure with the same font and style as the RMoD and declare the turret and hull armor to be proof against 1500mm KE.
Sale propaganda doesn’t have to be true for WT. We’ve seen that in current unmentionable events. Just has to be written down by an “authority” on the subject.
(While they’re at it, they can declare ARAT 2 to be worth 200mm KE at its best, so it can get 200KE from every direction.)
That ain’t true. I read the DOD after action report on desert storm (there’s a PDF)
The figure you’re actually referring to is that on the 1st version of the M1A1 there was a fuel gasket leak that affected 1/3rd of tanks. They actually exceeded combat readiness of 95-96% for the entirety of the conflict.
Bruh, the TURMS can lolpen the front of an M1A2 SEP. M829A2 doesn’t even reliably pen the breach or driver’s port of the BVM. Get out of here.
Read my post again, but slowly.
Told ya
Well the update is coming out tomorrow so I doubt we will see any changes made to the “new and improved” Abrams…Really pathetic
@Smin1080p sorry to ping you again.
The dev server Q&A (which I really like btw, they are great communications) mentioned that there would be another blog about the Abrams hull armor, this in itself is fine of course, the devs need time to work through the report. However with the technical downtime notice for tomorrow, does this mean that the SEPv2 will launch as it was on the dev server?
Thank you for your time.
Is this the current protection?
That’s the M1A2, I found the diagram on the WT wiki page
https://wiki.warthunder.com/M1A2_Abrams
I’m not sure if it’s up to date.
Oh gotcha, haha. Thank you. Sounds right the wiki would list it as that
Its hilarious the wiki has the old data from when the UFP wasnt nerfed and actually worked.
Damn, gg actually.
Although I still have a bad feeling about this.
Oh shit. Guess i missed the news
Oh shoot, you’re right!
The UFP should actually be green in some areas.
I guess that strengthens the argument somewhat… Xd
They know. Lol.
Artificial weakspots based on “statistics” and “balance”
Oh so its worse than it was even before :)
Lol. I thought it looked fishy
Does anyone know if the hull front armor of the M1A1 HA/HC and M1A2 was improved compared to the M1A1? Because the CATTB’s hull armor protection was not increased compared to a unknown model of M1A1, most likely the M1A1 HA, the report was published on MAR 1989 which fits with the M1A1 HA development.
It can’t be the base M1A1, because the CATTB’s hull front armor is 30.34% heavier, (3,115 lbs for the M1A1) and (4,060 lbs for the CATTB).
well I wrote a email to general dynamics…they have not replied.
I penned and OHK the BVM with M829 in the left of the breech. After all it’s still T-80B turret
Yeah but it’s inconsistent in-game. It’s one thing to go into the armor viewer and scroll around for pixel weak spots, but in game it’s not that easy. And even though there are some spots near the breach that are weak, there are just as many spots that are completely immune. Give the turret a little wiggle and the shot is likely to do nothing.
I misinterpreted what I was originally responding to, but my point remains.
