Yeah, just checked on the wiki, the DM53 on the L44 has less velocity, resulting in less pen
didnt gaijin already say they wont add anti-era properties to the APFSDS rounds that have them? so i doubt we will see M829A3 anytime soon. Also its not like M829A2 has trouble killing things anyways.
3 Likes
That would explain why the Black Night and CR2E still use L27A1 ingame lol
Edit: well, after looking around on the web a bit, the CR2s being limited to L27A1 had nothing to do with that
Sadly it seems that L27A1 already is the best round the L30 gun can fire :(
im pretty sure gaijin has said they arent adding it as they dont believe it would make much difference ingame compared to A2
I wouldn’t trust their logic. It could easily be another “If Soviet engineers vs. Western engineers regarding MANPADs” again. If the A3 is no-real improvement, then its straight to the A4 then.
It wasn’t, the point was that if M829A3 was to be implemented, without the addition of a ERA bypass mechanic(due to it being a BR pass, not a major patch no one to work in implementing it). It’s not much an improvement, thus not worthwhile. As the ERA bypass mechanic was arbitrarily not on the table for implementation as a reaction. Also it would only improve performance against ERA equipt Tanks, thus not actually be all too useful against what is killing the M1s at least according to Gaijin.
Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft
“The first consideration is the addition of a new M829A3 shell which we’ve also seen requests and suggestions for. We’ve discussed this option, but the addition of this shell in comparison with the M829A2 will not enhance the Abrams capability against top-tier vehicles that are equipped with modern armor and built-in ERA systems. We’re still considering the possibility of adding the M829A3 shell, but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents.”
The MANPADS issue was due to their inability to use google, or even remotely try looking for relevant patents. (it was literally the first result)
1 Like
But the creation of the M829A3 was to defeat modern ERA. That was the point of it, from what I have read at least. It is Gaijin’s opinion that it would not lead to a difference in gameplay so I have to say that does not carry water. The issue the Abrams was running into then and now is that the ERA is just tanking long darts. So give the US the round meant to not let ERA-clad Soviet tanks to do such. Decreasing the reload time was pretty much negated with the turret basket nerf no one else has had to experience yet (besides obviously the Leopards since they also go it). I just don’t buy the argument that a round meant to defeat modern ERA would improve the Abram’s position.
If the A3 truly cannot defeat modern ERA, then the logical step is to go to the A4.
I thought they actually saw that patent and data stuff for the western MANPADS and straight up said:
“Nah, we don’t believe that those stats are possible, because soviet MANPADS can’t achieve those stats”
2 Likes
That is what happened. It was quite hilarious that was their response.
2 Likes
This reminds me of the issue Soviet engineers ran into regarding the B-29 they were trying to reverse engineer.
“One item in the American manuals puzzled the Soviet engineers mightily. It was a phrase reading ‘Start the putt-putt’. None of the engineers could recall coming across this term before; the team researched much aviation literature but to no avail. The mystery was solved by pure chance when someone started the emergency generator/auxiliary power unit which was driven by a two-stroke engine and this started emitting an unmistakable putt-putt-putt-putt-putt…”
A potential issue is that the modeling of post-penetration damage depends on the scale of residual penetrative capacity, thus providing a flat bonus to penetration as is precedent with the current modeling of tandem HEAT warheads. will throw things off, and not properly reflect performance against non-ERA equipt targets, with no implemented method of accounting for the presence of ERA.
The point is that Gaijin would have to do a bunch of work “under the hood” to make it work that they weren’t willing to do, when the reload buff “solved” the issue, the same way all of a sudden Autoloaders get their best possible bench speeds (the carousel, and inventory are immaterial and next cell over will have the requested shell even if not possible to load as such).
It’s intended to avoid reducing their BR at all costs so they are “revising suggestions” looking for the path of least resistance, where possible.
No They literally saw primary documentation and told us to pound sand. because they couldn’t figure out how it works so concluded that it doesn’t.
“Max overload will be 13 G.”
exerpts
5 Likes
could you please use a spoiler
lots of pics back to back are a pain on mobile
Idk OSA is quite capable against drones, I’ve never had issues with them. Although I rarely see them in battles, in general usually there aren’t that many air targets at these brs, unlike at top tier.
when you can fire on them, shame the search radar has a very limited vertical search zone
Weird, I constantly see those drones when I am using the Stormer AD and HVM
Maybe they actually aren’t that common and me getting annoyed about the fact that I usually cannot lock them with those SPAAs makes me feel like I see them a lot more than I actually do
What are you talking about? Why, in order to give something to the US, do you first have to give something to others?
I think the Abrams’ lack of armor and speed should be compensated by a fire pen.
1 Like
Tbf the SEPv3 with M829A2 should have been added with the 2A7V 2 years ago.
Please just stop with the cope posting everywhere
That is what balance is. You add vehicles/ammo/missiles of similar capabilities for multiple nations at the same time to create a balanced enviroment.
Sadly Gaijin generally prefers FOTM over balance (2A7s, BVM, 2A6, 2A5, IPM1, M1, MBT-70/Kpz 70 are examples).
4 Likes
The issue here is that the Armor scheme isn’t on that list of yours is it. That is the tradeoff for the M1 being otherwise serviceable, in skilled hands. For the average player it’s a crippling deficiency and is reasonable for the bad rap it gets.
The Abram’s not being well armored relative to the ammo that it gets shot at with is the downside.
The SEP V3 isn’t going to magically make the armor somewhat functional, considering they rebuffed any sort of upgrade for the -A2’s hull array.
2 Likes
It’s more than servicable. In the hands of skilled players it’s incredibly strong.
I disagree with this. The Abrams reputation is disproportionally bad compared to it’s actual in game performance.
True, but at least it still should have been added 2 years ago instead of the SEPv2 in air superiority. Since it’s at least a closer counterpart to the 2A7.
1 Like