If you played other MBTs you’d know Abrams isn’t the only one that suffers with this
Issue passed to gaijins shredder
I think people have a valid response on both sides, the Abrams is a very good tank, and it does deserve its battle rating, but at the same time its extremely frustrating to play something that’s getting shafted heavily in a way that’s an issue with the game and not a flaw of the tank. Honestly if you gave the SEPv2 and V1 a bit better lfp protection and made the turret ring a bit smaller, you’d have pretty much a tank that’s tied number one with the leopards for the best spot, as you’d be trading a little bit of post penn survivability and firepower for a bit more mobility so it’d be a bit of a trade off.
I get where they are coming from I play the Type ten a lot I really like the Type Ten its a good tank, but regardless the issues it faces are extremely annoying and upsetting especially because a lot of the issues are from the game and not from its IRL performance. Think about it like how you think about the Typhoon, its a great plane in game but its sill frustrating that it has issues.
Any feedback that does not align with their views is immediately dismissed as “not a bug.”
Even if it is occasionally accepted, it may later be removed under fabricated reasons and reclassified as “not a bug.”
Even if it narrowly escapes being labeled as such, they will never actually implement it.
The only way to get anything implemented is to pray to the Gaijin gods for mercy.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
man i wish other nations had such tiny issues…
The important thing I think that Gaijin misses, is that they aren’t arbiters of the truth with their implementations or rulings.
I still don’t see how they thought that this would fly.
“Will be fixed in 2.31.1.63+, Max overload will be 13 G.”
Its blatantly obvious that they don’t do anything that even approaches exhaustive search considering the erroneous pile of absolute bullshit that the MANDPADS article even exists where it the basis of it’s argument allowing them to double down on arbitrarily refuting primary documentation is fundamentally flawed (the report to correct this they’ve had a year and a half to act on but haven’t, yet) comes down to that they don’t know how it works so it can’t be true.
Refer to the above, it impacts many nations since they are also stuck using Stingers(and others in the that would Overhaul #1,#2 Western MANPAD performance). And besides there are limits to what can be done with the limited documentation for modern systems, even if things are obviously wrong, finding sufficient qualitative proof is difficult.
In other words: Just World of Tanks it.
Do we even have any actually primary documentation for their specific NERA array? Or are they also held to the Swedish export trials document?
And besides its not as if the T-Series don’t have their Component modifiers adjusted every so often. Of which we have a much better idea of what their exact composition actually is, so as to why their RHAe gets adjusted who knows.
We don’t have any it’s all classified and yes they based the value off the Swedish test trial export package.
Not all of it, we’ve got data for the baseline M1 & implied / prospective values for the M1A1 / M1IP from a British report. so if we had adequate data that uses said configurations as a reference we could build a circumstantial case to have them improved.
Pretty sure there was a later 120mm variant offered to the UK as well at some point so Flame, might turn something relevant up in future.
We do, and this surprised me actually.
I’m Dutch but I never knew we had any interest in acquiring the Abrams at some point, but we evidently did.
We received quite detailed armour performance documentation regarding both the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams during this time period, unfortunately with the nature of such documents, I’m not certain if they are allowed to be shared publicly.
It also goes into some detail in regards to the turret ring protection, it’s annoying that I don’t know if it’s able to be shared, otherwise I could’ve potentially used it in a bug report.
If it’s an issue with Gaijin’s “rules”, you could ask a tech mod.
It’s not up to Gaijin to decide if a source can be publicly shared.
It was more so implied that, that wasn’t the issue. it was more so meeting Gaijin’s additional criteria for being able to be submitted.
But if you want to do so, you could try asking whomever you got it from and see what happens.
I have, unfortunately the National Military Archives were busy with renovations/moving of material and could not answer my question.
Are you expecting them to get back to you? Was any sort of elevated privilege used to get access to said document(s).
The current lfp protection was introduced on the tank in order to be balanced when munitions in game were a lot weaker than they are currently. It’s also notable that the turret ring is sitting a bit more exposed than its IRL counterpart, so if World of tanks made a better model then so be it I guess.
Nope.
When introduced, it was simply attributed the armour values as found in available source material.
This has held true to this day.
This myth is getting a bit tiresome.
So then why do the more modern Abrams in game use the same exact hull armor as earlier m1a1 models, despite their being in the records stated multiple times upgrades to the all around protection of the tank to include improvements to the hull (Not including the debate over DU). Why do we have sources being given to gajin stating the reinforcement of the torsion bar or whatever its called to allow for the tank to hold more weight in its hull, but got a vehicle that weighs what ten tons more (I can’t open the game right now I’m downloading Skyrim mods, drop any recommendations you got for that) despite having no upgrade to it in game that would see this ten ton upgrade in weight. Also I’m not an expert but pixels are not a standard unit of measurement as they can change sizes depending on need, you could if you wanted make any pixel count match by compressing or stretching an image in order to change the pixel count, or by displaying it on something with a lower or higher pixel count no?
Because that’s how it is IRL based on currently available documentation.
Feel free to share said sources.
M1 Abrams: 55.7t
IPM1: 56.8t > Received extended turret cheeks with improved armour composition.
M1A1: 57.2t > Recieved M256 120mm gun.
M1A1 HC: 61.2t > Received steel-encased depleted uranium packages in the turret cheeks.
M1A2: 62t
M1A2 SEP: 62.2t
M1A2 SEP v2: 63t
M1A2 SEP v3: 66.8t > NGAP/NEA armour package that improved both turret and hull composites.
As you can see, the major increases in weight are paired with increases in turret armour protection, these changes are modeled in-game already.
I knew it was going to be something, it’s always something.
Everything’s to the same scale and as the same angle, if you have any evidence that supports your claim that the turret ring is modeled too large in-game, feel free to share it.