You complain about people ‘insulting you’, but your first reaction to a broad spectrum comment is… to use an ad hominem fallacy?
Broad spectrum comment? You were responding to someone incorrectly and disingenuously trying to dismiss my argument as a strawman (which it wasn’t) and calling it ridiculous. I’m asking a genuine question since I would have expected you to have read the preceding posts before responding so considered that you may not be capable of using your eyes. It appears you can and that you just simply never bothered.
Funnily too, you’ve just proved my point. Despite having so many people contribute to this thread, all you could do was point out a single persons’ wild demand out of dozens that have talked here in the past few hours.
What are you talking about? What do you mean point out a single persons wild demand? I wasn’t talking about anything else because I was responding to the person who was mentioning the insane demand. Why would I be talking about something else unrelated?
Looks like you jumped into a conversation midway without actually reading what came before. An easy mistake. I forgive you.
You’ve got about 3 options when facing a tseries frontally, take its breach. Aim at the lfp which has the chance of the driver eating my entire sabot round OR aim at pixels that make up the drivers hatch. Which is 10x harder to hit than any shot towards an Abrams
You keep saying repeatedly. B-b-but my ammo it’s right there if my ufp gets lol penned. Ok? And? You want them to magically make the ammo disappear or something so you can survive if you get penned through the ufp?
Again like I said, repeatedly saying b-but my ammo in the hull ok? Maybe if they didn’t design it that way it wouldn’t be an issue right? Right. Also not sure if you’ve played against t series in wt but can’t tell ya how many times I’ve shot the side of a bvm or 90m etc just for the era to eat it or the ammo to eat it.
Alternatively, they could just folder the SEP v2 together with the other M1A2’s and then implement the SEP v3 in the very next patch as the end-of-line M1.
At least you can just skip the SEP v2 in the same way you want to skip the Challenger 2 TES.
Aim at the lfp which has the chance of the driver eating my entire sabot round
I’ve never had this happen to me. Either I must be impossibly lucky or this is very uncommon and not really an issue.
OR aim at pixels that make up the drivers hatch.
Drivers/hatch turret ring is pretty easy to hit though, it’s still a fairly decent size. Misrepresenting it as “pixels” to make it sound like a smaller weakspot than it is just makes your argument look bad.
Which is 10x harder to hit than any shot towards an Abrams
As I’ve already stated you can hit the LFP of the abrams easily if they aren’t using terrain for sure but you can’t just click anywhere on it or you’re probably going to get return fire from gunner/commander. The turret ring weakspot is shared with quite a lot of other tanks. Leopard 2 variants? Fire under the gun and through the turret ring. Challengers? Same. Russian tanks? Can still do the same.
You keep saying repeatedly. B-b-but my ammo it’s right there if my ufp gets lol penned. Ok? And? You want them to magically make the ammo disappear or something so you can survive if you get penned through the ufp?
I never said any of the stuff you said in the latter half of your post. It’s also not relevant. You’re the one who brought this totally irrelevant thing up. Of course the ammo being behind the UFP is a factor. You DO realise that there are multiple factors that combine together to influence and impact a tanks effectiveness yes? I do not understand why you’re trying to go off on this unrelated tangent about “its their fault for engineering it”. The same could be said for abrams LFP lacking improved armour for the current A2 variants in the game as I said.
Your entire last passage is just more of what I said in my last paragraph.
Where did I lie? See, now, that right there really does tell me the quality of those arguing against correcting the Abrams and giving it proper ammunition and capabilities.
Clearly has not played War Thunder enough in USSR.
Normalization, you remember you said that? It’s called firing down into the lower front plate from a taller tank and instead of spalling up into the autoloader, it overpens through the bottom of the hull (which doesn’t actually happen, see GHPC).
But keep going and telling us all how we’re liars for our played experiences while making sweeping generalizations.
Sounds more to me like a very common thing where you’re constantly in city scrums and firing downwards at angles through a tank that’s shorter than you, but ok.
Breech often wipes out the turret crew too, especially on the T-90M. The M1’s and Strv don’t seem as susceptible to having their crew killed via breech shots.
LFP is usually a OHK unless the vehicle is oriented downwards.
Driver’s hatch can be a viable target, but the breech is a safer option when fighting at long range.
must I quote you everytime I respond to you? is this whole response invisible to you or is this all just bait
please continue telling me that “nuh uh where did i lie”
so tell me how does this lie have any semblance of truth in it? I dont play russia in game I’m not russian or near that in real life and I havent been asking for buffs to russian tanks but do please keep calling me a russian fanboy
I don’t know man i never had the ammo not blow on me after the patch that fixed the charges, and when it didn’t blow it was always because of bad shot placement on my part, not because of the game
Normalization, you remember you said that? It’s called firing down into the lower front plate from a taller tank and instead of spalling up into the autoloader, it overpens through the bottom of the hull (which doesn’t actually happen, see GHPC).
Maybe it’s just your poor aim but I can’t say this has ever been an issue for me fighting against russian T-series tanks and the LFP is one of the places that I frequently shoot along with the drivers port/turret ring area.
You’re definitely just being hyperbolic. Funny you go around calling others liars and disingenuous when this is what you come out with.
it’s easy, just provide an appropriate primary or two reputable secondary sources on the part you want fixed. If you have the proof it shouldn’t be hard to make a bug report.
if the sources were actually viable and reputable enough for gaijin this would not be a problem, a thing i’ve noticed with a lot of Abrams bug reports is that a lot of the sources provided wouldn’t even classify as a secondary source, nevermind a reputable one
