But is that chart that Spanish Avenger just shared accurate? If so, it seems like Gaijin has been screwing the Abrams out of a lot of protection. Both hull and turret.
Also, looks like the Abrams bug reports will end up being dismissed as it used the same source as the following for values:
lol. So they are going to use the stats of a nerfed, non-DU Abrams variant with armor inferior to even the baseline US M1A2? Then they are gonna hit us with the clown world logic of “we can’t be sure an improved armor package is really an improvement.” Despite the money, hours, labor invested, only to make the tanks heavier for no improvement in protection. The R&D, totally worthless. “We’re not sure it’s an improvement.”
9 Likes
Gotta love the snail making up new rules on the spot with the “We don’t accept Russian lang”
2 Likes
That rule isn’t new. No Russian sources for NATO vehicles is a rule added before 2018.
I would assume they would take your secondary sources as proof though, do both of them state it had improved hull armour and give values?
Swedish sources have values of export armor and gajin knows about it
They accepted Russian news to nerf the shit outta the M41’s turret traverse.
2 Likes
So they nerfed the M1IP/M1A1? When the hell did that happen???
With how they are selectively applying their logic and finding reasons to dismiss reports they don’t like, I doubt it.
1 Like
And m735
I also wanna bring up how the Snail uses an export M1A2 that predates all SEP Abrams as an excuse to say the SEP didn’t improve armor.
2 Likes
All M1 have the same hull
No they didn’t. M41 turret traverse “nerf” was from the M41’s manual, which is American.
@KDA_Evelynn I haven’t seen evidence M735’s angled pen was nerfed yet, partially cause the 2km pen was increased.
@Count_Trackula
They’re not selective, there’s consistent denials.
That chart was made by Gaijin so it is accurate, I was just clarifying that the side armor composition difference is meaningless because Gaijin doesn’t model NERA in layers but as a monoblock that has a quality modifier.
Not necessarily, the reason why that estimate was rejected it for the Leclerc is because they deem the Swedish trial as a more trustworthy source, but the same cannot be said about the M1A2 because for one it’s not an SEP and second it’s not the same armor.
2 Likes
The dev’s live in constant denial of reality.
2 Likes
They changed values from xm735e2(m735) to xm735
The Swedish values weren’t even an actual armour package, from what I can find it was a rushed product made for those trials, as the US refused to give them DU (which unlike what people will tell you the Swedes wanted the DU armour) and they apparently didn’t like the FMS armour package that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia received which was the original FMS armour i.e. BRL-2 like.
I haven’t seen evidence M735’s angled pen was nerfed yet, partially cause the 2km pen was increased.
Conraire’s statement:
“The change was due to a bug report on the CBR. Unfortunately the person who made the report misinterpreted a fair amount of information from the sources used, and I wasn’t around my computer at the time it was forwarded to catch it and help the reporter make corrections. I’ve forwarded some new and corrected information regarding this issue. No promises on whether it’ll get fixed though.”
So it was nerfed significantly, Conraire already came out with what the values should have been (the post that he talked about this in was removed as it was a devblog post) but here are his 0 degree and 60 degree figures for what M735 should be based on the reported documents:
Vertical
10m = 333mm
100m = 331mm
500m = 323mm
1000m = 313mm
1500m = 302mm
2000m = 292mm
3400m = 260mm
60deg
10m = 194mm
100m = 193mm
500m = 189mm
1000m = 183mm
1500m = 177mm
2000m = 170mm
Edit: Found exactly what conraire has posted before the post was removed.
1 Like
But the problem is, is that the accepted bug report uses the same Russian source for said improved values.
I.e. - We also do not accept Russian-language sources on Western technology.