It technically provides the correct protection of 20% of an apfsds penetrator within the correct time period. It provides 140mm los protection or 20%, of m829a1s los pen at 68 degrees.
I understand what u mean about them not working as an los bonus irl, but technically they arent completely wrong.
Also. Id wager a1 can pen any k5 tank under 1200. (This isnt an acceptable range for combat) Which is why a2 was just velocity boosted to push out the combat distance.
This of course could be true with the corrected ufp composite of a t series tank with k5 added. Its not in game rn
This makes me sad. They don’t believe in America like they should. God damn it do you know the country that visited the moon?
Hope Abrams gets better one day but its too difficult to sort all 12gen du insert in lower part of left third of upper side hull and choose the one that’s right
Off topic question, do you have anything on how much the TUSK package is suppose to weigh?
I found some info on how much each tile for ARAT and ARAT 2 weighs, but the current implementation of TUSK weighs like 1.2 tonnes more then the ARAT tiles do.
Oh how wrong your anti-NATO take is.
Sweden isn’t Russia, nor is Germany & China. 3 tech trees whose armor matches that of T-90M while having identical or superior ammo.
With people like yourself to praise Russian vehicles, who needs actual Russian mains?
Your post defends Russian vehicles more than any Russian main in existence, quite the accomplishment.
And I’ll be labeled something nasty for my defense of Abrams & NATO vehicles once more.
Tantrums fix nothing.
Gaijin ain’t an enemy, and Abrams is tied for 2nd in fastest reload… while having the 2nd best penning round in the game.
Ya’ll are mad at Gaijin cause the US government is hush hush about Abrams.
& instead of thinking of solutions like I and many other well headed people have done, you yell.
1- More digging for information on specific Abrams, like what @Daniel8599 has done and may continue doing.
2- Suggest rule changes on the forum suggestions.
3- Provide feedback for 2024 roadmap that includes your respectfully written assertive dissatisfaction with the current rules on armor for top MBTs.
People forget that Gaijin explicitly states they’re open to new sources of information.
@Dancing_Frog
Tons? Sir, M1A2 SEP2 has only half a ton on SEP1, which TUSK2 is clearly part of.
SEP1 has half a ton on M1A2, tho not entirely sure where that is.
And M1A2 has more armor & tons than M1A1.
@_Renzo
Negative reviews won’t change anything, they don’t respond to those and never will.
My negative review wasn’t made to get things to change though. I just made it so that new players can know that the “authentic and realistic vehicles” is only true when Gaijin wants it to be, and not overall true.
Except your statement is false.
All vehicles are authentic to known information at their disposal.*
It would only be unauthentic if they scrapped the armor source rules in favor of parity at top MBTs for example.
We’re stuck cause there’s nothing conclusive before SEP3, and M1A2 - M1A2 SEP2 weight gain isn’t more than a ton.
Now, 1 ton is something. Computer equipment, guns, armor, etc as potential options.
SEP3 is the thing that REALLY gains weight cause its armor is 100% confirmed in the sources I’ve seen.
Otherwise DU hull armor would be realistic on the modern Abrams MBTs because of the 5 test vehicles that were equipped with them in 2006. Exact same situation as the 80B.
Authentic and realistic doesn’t make a difference between armor and electronics. No matter how desperately you want that to be.
Seems like my negative report triggered you a bit, is it because it doesn’t put your precious Gaijin in a positive light? That it doesn’t praise them into the heavens?
No, Gaijin thinks their sources are correct and they’re sincere about their position.
There’s no malice, no dishonesty, just a perspective based on solid primary sources that IMO are dated, and newer documents contradict.
While I currently cannot locate an open file speaking on SEP V1 or V2s DU armor, there is a study 100% confirming the use of DU in the turrets of M1A1 models and the original M1A2.
The document in passing mentions removing the ballistic protection from the front hull and skirts to avoid unnecessary contamination of armor (possibly referencing removing the DU screens from these areas) as the tests were primarily on turret penetrations.
Multiple times though, the Capstone tests directly mention and confirm DU armor usage dating back to ODS, specifically mentioning that no Abrams using this armor was impacted by enemy/friendly fire.
all good, I can’t seem to find much about it the total weight of TUSK either, but I personnaly don’t see where that 1.2 extra tons comes from, regardless cheers.
