As far as I know, no.
Might be worth a bug report, it’s clear to see tbey are stacked 4 high and it should offer better KE protection.
10 Likes
It’s pointless because that doesn’t affect the performance of the armor, they just have the equivalent amount of armor value, the angle of attack of the smaller 3D models isn’t considered, they behave like a vertical block of ERA.
ARAT-19 should however offer KE protection, but good luck on proving that to Gaijin.
Can anyone help me confirm if the Abrams fuel tank bulkheads over the driver area are 19mm in real life too? Because according to this they’re 25.4mm (1 inch) thick, in game it’s also missing the frontal part of the fuel tanks.
The fuel tanks should provide 25.4mm + 25.4mm instead of 19mm in game.
8 Likes
M1 Abrams fuel tanks bulkheads over the driver area.
Left: Correct fuel tanks bulkheads.
Right: In game fuel tanks bulkheads.
12 Likes
Actually, you are accusing me of doing what you have done. The original point was that you’ve actually received updated protection, both on turret and hulls. You had to go and qualify it and do all the mental gymnastics. The Abrams has been denied historical protection improvements, in both turret and hull, while the Leos have had upgrades since the 2A4. Not sure why you felt the need to start talking about the 2A4 not being what you want it to be, but okay. You had multiple turret and hull improvements while you actively fought historical upgrades for the Abrams.
I corrected you on that, and you got upset and started talking about why the upgrades you DID get weren’t holding your hand hard enough. The L is entirely yours. :D
1 Like
I think thats enough, lets be relevant to the topic.
12 Likes
@Tantor57
Nothing would change if Soviets faced the Soviets. Sweden has the most armored tanks in the game.
Stop threatening toddler tantrums, they don’t work and never have.
@Apollo_1641
Some tanks are inaccurate, and some are very accurate.
It’s heavily reliant on available information.
Finding more available information is what’s needed.
That or providing a well put together suggestion for armor on modern MBTs that otherwise lack open information.
1 Like
I still think it is weird that they want exact values for the hull. The M1A1 HC received DU in the turret right? Compared to the base M1A1?
If we take the KE protection values of both the M1A1 HC and base M1A1, we see that the HC has a ~50% increase in KE protection on the turret cheeks compared to the base M1A1.
Now if we assume that the DU that was put in the hull of the SEPs is similar to that of the HC turret, couldn’t they just apply that 50% extra KE protection to the LFP and be done with it?
6 Likes
We should be asking for more, since they only gave us 370mm protection according to the chart.
nope they need exact stats on it to the micrometer
The hull has 360mm, if they improve the armor 50%, the hull would has 540mm. Insufficient
The M1A1 HC has more effective armor than M1A1 AIM in WT. Fun fact.
This is how the front fuel tanks bulkheads should be modelled, they are 25.4mm thick instead of 19mm, remodelling them should also fix this same issue: Community Bug Reporting System
Abrams Lightweight Variant Tank (ALVT) shows how the fuel tanks are fully enclosed, although they’re a bit larger on the normal Abrams.
10 Likes
Will you make the bug report for this?
yes, I’ll do it tomorrow
2 Likes
Oh man, has anyone actually seen the spall liner for the M3A3?
Not that it will matter much in regards to survivability, but can anyone verify that the US didn’t also put spall liners around where the gunner and commander are stationed?
8 Likes
they did but its gajin they dont care about USA ground vehicles
5 Likes
clearly the 2nd world’s strongest military (after russia LOL) Can’t afford to put spall liners for there equipment :)))
Sarcasm in case you didn’t notice :D
15 Likes