None of that diagram shows armor of the UFP. That is a HEAVILY outdated diagram of the hull array of a legacy Abrams model.
The UFP is nothing but a thing sheet or steel
3 Likes
Never said that. Good try twisting my words though.
You think a 40 year old tank is killable by AA gun fire, frontally. Either you’re biased or stupid.
List of Abrams bug report that already been Submitted as a suggestion
fuel cell bulkhead thickness (would buff UFP and LFP effectiveness)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xK4GPBS59dUL
M1A2 - M1A2 SEPv2 improved turret side armour (Buff turret side armour against CE threat by 250% )
This would also tell us why they don’t put ARAT-1 on turret side If they already have adequate CE protection.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ULvSC60SVBFw
As for turret ring. Dev said that “Creating such a report can help us more accurately adjust our protection model of the specified vehicle, but it does not guarantee that the information specified in it will be implemented in the game.”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
And thus we’re still waiting
4 Likes
Well, this thread is depressing.
Some of us genuinely try to solve the actual issues the Abrams tanks have ingame, and then there’s… all these complaints which I still don’t even know what they are suppossed to be about.
Things like this make those of us who try to fix the Abrams in the ways they need it to look bad.
7 Likes
Listen to me very carefully.
As a former tank crewman of that vehicle, I’m as adamant as most others in revisions of the Abrams.
However, the imagery you’re showing is the older arrays shown. They’ve been circulating for half a decade now.
I’m being very blunt with you, we’ve already done everything we could to convince Gaijin about the arrays being outdated 1996 models, and they’re only just now addressing the turret ring. And we’re still waiting for the suggestion to actually be implemented. (Almost 8 months now)
Your argument, while passionate, misses a key element… none of us know the exact composites and ceramics in the Abrams’ array.
We’re not meant to.
Suffice to say, Gaijin’s own modeling sucks for modern tanks in totality because they expect an RHA equivalency where none is possible, because it’s not RHA thickness, it’s how sabots act when striking ceramic armor, a Lanz-Odermatt equation that takes dedicated programs days to properly upload.
No one can do this without supercomputers for games.
So we’re left with the simpler RHA thickness equation, which is questionable as hell.
That and the balancing that Gaijin does for players (which is totally unrealistic).
So, while you may think you can argue this, trust when I say that you’re treading issues we’ve already gone over with them multiple times.
The only way to get them to shut up is to come back with documents that are literal national secrets. Even if I knew them, I wouldn’t give them up for this game.
So, I treat the Abrams in game as a cheap export version from 1996, as far as armor.
Do I want the turret ring fixed still? Damn right. I don’t expect it to be, and I’m not holding my breath. In the meantime, I play Japanese or French tanks because it’s fun.
PS: M829A3 when, Gaijin?
7 Likes
Crew vests, much like commander handheld gen 1 thermal monoculars, would be cool suggestions.
This would buff M1A1s for example.
Sadly no vest suggestion.
M1A1 HC onward in War Thunder have that DU in the turret array, and have had that in the array since M1A2 released.
Spoiler
1 Like
Do we even have an Abrams beyond 1996?
1 Like
Italy also happens to play 90% of games vs US and be on the red teams. So your win rate still gets carry by russia and germany. It’s balance since u mostly fight abrams and they have the same armor values as you, and yes you do get a better round and yes your engine sounds like every other tank on game. No like “ABRAMS” turbine. So you can actually sneak on people and do okay.
In game? Hell no. Every RHA thickness shown matches perfectly with the 96 trials. (Edit: Oh they’ll say they added circa 50mm, like that matters for shit)
1 Like
I do not have the Ariete, it was a comment to show that many tank models are flawed and not just US tanks.
The high pitch tone on Abrams has been boosted again, while the diesels (which should reverberate a shitload more in tight quarters) have been made more quiet.
Don’t even get me started on the French diesels, which are notoriously pitched quieter, being some of the loudest in game.
3 Likes
Just remove the permanent Arat armor, so many people would be happy, the SEP is so much more enjoyable when people can’t see you over hills and you can move fast enough to engage.
I worked on the abrams all my life and can say that the abrams in game is accurate to reality.
End of argument.
2 Likes
Never seen you before. Denied.
Want to hear a funny story? For the longest time the Leclerc used the Leopard 2 engine sound. When it was bug reported, over 20 minutes of raw footage of Leclerc testing was passed to the sound dev straight from the French media archives. On the dev server it was correct but when it made it to live it was changed again to be much louder.
1 Like
Never seen you before either, you must be a walt.
1 Like
I’ve blocked the person you replied to, so I’m missing context.
But yes, we do because the SEP is from 1999 and the SEP v2 is from 2009. I’m not exactly sure when Australia adopted the M1A1 AIM though I suspect it’s somewhere in the 2000’s.
4 Likes
Meaning he’s hates being corrected, so he’s blocked me. And the SEP and SEPSv2 he’s referencing only have the external ERA/ARAT panels. The frontal armor array is still the 1996 trials plus 50mm, which is of course a ‘guesstimate’ by Gaijin.
Considering yours is a private account, I’ll take that as a compliment. Making claims about working on Abrams but with no background is, you know, kind of a question of integrity.
Why does this not surprise me in the least?