But isn’t is unfair when one side has to aim for special weakpots, while the other one just blaps everything with sloppy third person aimed shots into any part of hull armor?
3 Likes
the turret of the m1 is impenetrable, the ufp is ricochet land unless the angle is bad, and the lfp is reasonably small as is the gun mantlet.
i fight both m1 and t72 and they are no where as lowly armoured as my leo 1, leo2av, kpfpz, m48 super or leo 2a4.
note: if the angle is right you can easily pen the ufp of the t72 and t80 series
M829A3 & A4 do not have equivalents for ALL OTHER COUNTRIES in the world.
So no, they’re not needed.
M1A2’s turret armor is accurate. Breech armor IDK.
Well not just Abrams every NATO tanks in the game armor is too weak (maybe except STRV-122)
Hull armor is too weak for Abrams when it should be stronger because of DU armor in the game it feel like export version of Abrams (maybe even export model are stronger than in the game)
same goes as Leopard 2A6 that don’t have D Tech armor package.
You’re right and it the reason why Russian calling Strv-122 OP (when it not)
what should i say can i blame the other countries that can’t make better rounds than US?
well at least German have DM73 and DM63 (might not pen better than DM53 but very hard to explode)
why can give 2010 ammunition to Russians and can’t give M829A3 which is older to US? sound unfair to me.
and ammo itself such as L27A1 and DM53 still missing anti ERA ability.
5 Likes
DM73 is DM53 with more powder, quite literally that’s it.
And 3BM60 is worse than even M829A1, which is on M1A1.
DM53 doesn’t have anti-ERA capabilities, you’re thinking of a potential DM83.
L27A1 also doesn’t have anti-ERA capabilities and is on par with 3BM60.
So no, there is nothing unfair here other than 3BM59 isn’t in the game yet.
Tandem dynamic protection “Doublet” (btvt.info)
and bonus
unless you find something better that show me to prove DM53 don’t have anti ERA i’m all ears
not trust me bro/.com
7 Likes
interesting that’s why dm53 was made to defeat heavy era…^^
also some proof that your clam is true and not straight out of the place where the sun doesn’t shine ?
there more then enough reports made for rounds such as dm53 or L27 missing it’s anti era capability’s
the hull does not have DU
1 Like
balans
DM53 doesn’t have anti-ERA capabilities, you’re thinking DM83.
Correct, it doesn’t in the game, BUT it does have them in real life. Same with L27. DM53 was made to defeat Heavy ERA and Rheinmetall straight up says it does do that, so I’ll be trusting them.
Both are them are, truth be told, in a nerfed state right now.
2 Likes
You’ll notice all the ERA for that tank is in-tact, meaning the round didn’t hit ERA.
Which is possible to accomplish in WT.
@MuricaxSuffers @FurinaBestArchon
Being made to “defeat” can just mean high-pen, that’s it. Not have anti-ERA features of DM83 or M829A3+.
And DM53 can defeat tanks with ERA, just not all of them.
I really do hope that they are paying you properly. Always love to read your stuff here for fun.
6 Likes
The US federal government, & Washington state government are paying me well enough.
1 Like
Which M1A2 turret armor is accurate?
Both.
M1A2 SEP only upgraded some hulls armor according to the data we’ve seen so far.
SEP V2 upgraded turret armor.
bro, we’ve already proven the m1a2 has depleted uranium in its hull. this was talked about to death on reddit and people even made bug reports from U.S Government sources proving this., You need to get up to speed
2 Likes
Everything you said in this post does not disprove anything I said.
anybody who says the M1 series has a UFP that can withstand anything are coping. It hasn’t ricocheted rounds in a long time.
5 Likes
Still Abrams in this game are kind weak LFP should be around 500-550mm in the game (maybe more maybe less since I don’t know how this game make the armor)
Oh trust me i have sources saying DM53, DM 63, M829A2 could all penetrate KONTACT 5 and a French rounds from 2003 could fully penetrate Kontact 5, i’ve had enough of these Fairy tale russian tanks with K5 being invulnerable to rounds they shouldnt be.
Tandem dynamic protection “Doublet” (btvt.info)
Analysis of the design of BPS countries NATO confirms the implementation of measures to overcome remote sensing without initiating explosives. The outdated DZ “Contact-5” is likely to be overcome by the BPS M829A2, OFL-F1 and DM43 without explosive initiation thanks to the pointed design of their head part without initiating the detonation of explosives in protective elements. Even in the case of initiation of explosives in elements 4S22 and 4S23 due to the segmented design of the bow core (BPS DM53, M829A3) high Armor penetration ability will be maintained.
BPS of the latest generation DM53, DM63, M829A3 along with the design The head part (optimized to overcome the remote sensing) has a special segmented core design, little affected by DZ “Contact-5” and “Relic” [2, 3]. The Research Institute of Steel was testing the built-in DZ “Contact-5” in mainly with the help of the BPS 3BM22, which by design has little in common with the BPS foreign countries.
Developers of foreign BPS DZ “Kontakt-5” is widely used when testing solutions for overcoming DZ. At tests of the DM53 BPS used mock-ups of protection units similar to those used in designs of T-90S and T-80U tanks, including DZ “Contact-5”, “Relic” and a promising multilayer DZ. Due to the shortcomings of the devices DZ, built according to the “classical” plano-directional scheme, foreign The developers of anti-tank weapons managed to overcome the armor Russian-made BPS tanks of 120 mm caliber from distances over 3 km.
c9336047d307.thumb.jpg.94a90903658f174bcc900724f421371c.jpg (1000×626) (gaijin.net)
4 Likes