You do realize that I had literally attached an image of the same thing except with an 81 degree ricochet?
Why do you selectively ignore parts of my post and argue with half-written sentences? Do you perhaps have trouble reading?
The Abrams constructional angle is 83 degrees, you’ve zoomed the camera out on purpose and are being facetious by showing a “penetration” through manipulation of the camera angle in the garage. You can test the Abrams UFP in an actual match and see it ricochet shells with ease.
Yea right. Go ahead and put a russian T80 with a 700mm apfsds at 10.3 and then go ahead and give the british for the same score a jaguar that has 2 magics that sits at 11.0 . Seems kinda balanced for air RB but overall not really
Oh yea sorry tought it was at 10.3 but 10 sec reload is nothing when you have an XM-1 GM in front of you that can not pen you anywhere. He is lucky if he gets your cannon
To be fair, the XM-1 can penetrate the LFP and perhaps driver port. He can also disable his gun or shoot his side if he’s showing even a small part of his side armor, especially since it doesn’t get any side K5.
And the XM-1 is an impossibly more nimble vehicle. But it is still unfair that the 292 is 10.0 as it completely undermines some vehicles that entirely rely on their armor to be relevant in their BR bracket - such as the Challenger 1 at 10.0 and 10.3 that are only good because of their turret armor, which can easily be cut through by the 292’s shell.
I think they should add the 292’s planned Kontakt-1 ERA as a modification and move it all the way up to 10.7. 10.0 is just not the BR for that vehicle. Even 10.3 seems low as its honestly got considerably better armor than the 10.3 T-80B. (The 292’s hull is the superior T-80U hull, and it gets a thickened breech which makes mantlet shots more difficult.)
İnsults i see, seems like i touched your nerve, you also didnt define agility properly.
Another insult.
İs it tho? lets see:
M1 Abrams:27.3 Hp/Ton ratio
T80U:27.2 Hp/Ton ratio
T80BVM:27.2 Hp/Ton ratio
Only 0.1 differences between Abrams and T80 series while both russian tanks has much better armor and practially the same mobility. Your first lie.
İm pretty sure my M1A2SEPV1 and V2 doesnt agreee with this comment.
T80U,UK,UM and BVM.
All T80’s can reach 70km on straight line while Abrams can reach 72km. 2km differences doesnt seem to be considerable amount but im not surprised you cant understand it.
3rd insult, this is getting out of hand.
4th one, you’re getting pretty desperate.
Couldnt care less what you think about other nations.
5th one.
İ dont, Gun depression doesnt belong to handling part considering its a whole different thing.
İm not the angry one in here but go on.
Leopard laughs quite hard tbh.
No one has denied it? You okay dude?
Another false claim.
You already said enough considering you threw countless insults.
Abrams exchange reload rate for armour which is something you’re not familiar.
Only in small amount of maps, most maps are CQC which negates Russian tanks disadvantage in this case.
6th one, seems like only thing you can do is insulting other people.
Hey @Pacifica can you come and handle this situation? This guy loves to insult other people.
well… T80Us are have different era (so less armor), UM dont have thermals and they all have significantly worse turret rotation speed.
Pretty sure it belongs.
It is really big laugh, almost defeaning.
Quite many small maps has ridges, places where to climb and etc. Fully flat maps without noticeable amount of ridges are quite rare (On top-tier i often see Rhein, Breslau and Sweden and thats all, maybe Aral sea too.). And additionaly (at least for me) nowadays i often see maps like Quarry, Sinai variations, Flanders and Normandy, which are quite modest with playing around gun depression (finaly hydropneumatic is usefull)
We were talking about mobility, not about other pros and cons.
Your personal opinion doesnt interest me.
Sarcasm, good but predictable.
Also has flat surfaces or small ridges which can be neglegtable with those gun depressions.
Not really.
Personal experiences can be quite different, my experiences on the other hand are based on cqc maps that offers prett good amount of flat surfaces.
İts funny that how you purposely avoided whole point of this discussion and straight went to part where it does suits your counter arguments (which didnt worked out anyway).
Yet the BVM is still one of the most survivable tanks in the game.
Generally, the people that complain most about spall liners now, are people that never complained about how the BVM had side ERA apparently good enough to completely stop 120mm APFSDS. Show me a validated source that Russia can make ERA that good - there is no way it’s possible.
It’s funny how they are happy to take Russia’s claims about things which defy logic, like the performance of Relict and the Vikhr, but MANPADS being able to pull 20g is just so far outside the realm of possibility that they decide to ignore the literature and model them like slightly upgraded Iglas.
It is funny, how you are trying to flex here. I wasnt countering anything, i just said, that there are enough small maps, where superior gun depression is an advantage (and game my personal recen experience, and even said that is my personal experience).
İf every map had large hills or ridges in every section then your personal claim could’ve been right but since those type of surfaces are not always avaliable this claim doesnt represent the whole truth.
Quite many maps have small hills with really angled steep or bomb craters (Even on Rhein, where park located). Yeah, it is really small location, but i found it quite often to be crucial, when because of this small hill, my negative 5 dont let me shoot first).
Yep, ofc, it is not something unplayable (hell, people even playing vehicles with negative 1 or 2), but still.