I’m not even annoyed about their reluctance to buff the abrams I don’t play america it doesn’t affect me, I’m annoyed by the fact that they will straight up lie to our faces about how unlike glorious russian engineering, weak NATO cannot make composite actually work against anything newer than 1970 instead of just saying “we don’t want to do it for balance” which people would accept. I suspect it’s the same for many people here.
3 Likes
Comment from Reddit, from the same user who provided the interesting source regarding armor weight reductions over the years;
I also want to point out two points they make, that appear to run contradictory of each other.
In the Torsion bar section
“Adding several tonnes of weight in this area critically reduces the service life of the first road wheels, torsion bars, swing arms, and other components of the suspension structure. For such an alteration to be logistically possible, engineers would have to redesign the entire suspension system, and provably no redesign was undertaken.”
But Further up the blog post:
“The issue is not that the data itself is poor, but that the tank itself was constantly changing. Weight was saved in one area while being added in another… (Image of Abrams) … A good example of this is that the transition to heavier torsion bars was accompanied by the replacement of steel road wheel arm brackets with lighter aluminum ones, which partially offset the added weight.”
So was there work done on the Suspension or not ? They can’t seem to decide, if the implication they are making is that “But the weight would all be up front so unevenly wear the front, even though the Torsion bars are strengthened”, they also provide their own points that may well explain why the weight isn’t uneven like they believe, so a full redesign would not be necessary.
“The SEP V3 also received massive tow pintle hooks, reinforced brackets for mine protection, and new APU armor, all of which increased the weight.”
28 Likes
its not just about buffs man if the Abrams should have something then it should have said something in the game marketed as realistic
1 Like
Keyword marketed
2 Likes
I think the funniest part about this is the Abrams can mount two mine blades, one about 3-4 tonnes and the other almost 10, both of which much heavier than any potential armour increase to the LFP, so how are those fine?
16 Likes
@Stona_WT @Smin1080p_WT so when is gajin actualy gonna do that with the 2a7V as well?
Its nice to see gajin “reacted” so fast when the people cried on the Abrams.
But we are waiting over 2 years on the Leopard rework now
For those exact reasons i am looking pessimistically towards the Puma rework as well, plans have not been followed trough once already.
16 Likes
they need to find classified leopard documents first
2 Likes
What about challenger 2 including it’s add-on armour which is absolutely underperforming ??
1 Like
What about the Leclercs, Merkavas and Type 10 :(
1 Like
How about keeping the discussion here to the Abrams and not other tanks like Stona already said
2 Likes
10 Likes
this is what we call ungrateful and ignoring simple research
Ballistics Research Laboratory was also hard at work designing a new special armor array for the turret that was just two 150mm steel slabs, didnt you know?
1 Like
But like 1-2 tons on the LFP would SHATTER the torsion bars!!
20 Likes
What are you talking about?
The Abrams has had the wrong armor modelling since it was ever implemented back in 2018;
There’s been countless reports regarding the turret ring, UFP, fuel tank bulkheads, etc, since at least 2019.
This welcome change has been anything but “a fast reaction to people crying”.
Why do German mains always have to undermine everyone else as if it would strengthen their points?
35 Likes
I would love to see this calculation. Is the assumption here that there has been no progress whatsoever in material weight efficiency in the past 40-50 years? Because there is certainly an eagerness to believe the claims of Relikt manufacturers on how efficient their plates are against literally everything while keeping the weight extremely low, but when it comes to armor developed in the west suddenly we need direct proof of everything?
31 Likes
And gaijin still tried to twist it into “it’s actually impossible because we know better than the primary evidence but because we’re SO kind we’ll half-ass it for you.”
its sitting on the ground its not the same as weight lifted up
1 Like
its specialy about changes between the v2 to the v3.
At no point did i state any opinion on the general implementation of the abrams besides that.
there is reason i put that into air quotes