At the very least, we should be looking at about 540-560mm KE.
Always remember that Gaijin stated that one of the main parameters to make a sensible calculation and estimation was “the likely threats the packages would be designed to face”.
Therefore, it would not be unwise to assume that SEPv3’s glacis should at least be able to withstand 3BM46 (1991) and even 3BM60 (2016) to a degree.
Would I expect it to withstand DM53 fired from L/55 guns? Probably not, because this tank was never made to face such threat.
Crews often know surprisingly little about the precise specifications of their vehicles, particularly armour arrays. That’s information that is conventionally kept to repair teams who actually have to handle the array, and even then they would know only the composition, not an exact KE/CE RHAe protection value.
Even assuming that you can stop a 3BM60 which I don’t believe do you think it makes sense in a game for your lower plate to be immune to your opponent’s best ammunition?
Expected based on what? evidence or your warped view of balance?
Fair, but how do you provide with certainty what are “likely/main threats”?
Wasn’t there something about Russia still using a lot of 3BM42 in the conflict that shall not be named? Do you have production/availability figures for Russian rounds?
Also at what ranges? 3BM46 has barely over 500mm penetration at 2km, so yes 500-510mm vs KE could be considered sufficient against that “threat” at those ranges.
Ah but he’s now going to pull out the technicality that you’re comparing UFP vs LFP values, as if the Abrams hull isn’t more LFP than UFP, and the UFP is perfectly penetrable.
That doesn’t even make sense do you want to reduce your front weakspot to a turret ring in a game? I’ll say it again, as I’ve said many times before you don’t want any balance at all you just want to be better.
Driving on rough terrain causes elastic deformation—the torsion bars twist and snap back. Leaving a 7,000lb load on the nose for 3 months causes static loading and mechanical creep (plastic deformation). The constant, unyielding stress causes the steel to permanently deform and lose its elastic memory. This is a known engineering fact documented in TM 9-2350-255-34-1-2, where front-weighted chassis require significantly shorter inspection cycles for suspension sag. If static weight didn’t impact service life, the military wouldn’t have removed the 25-ton turret on the M1150 ABV just to balance the permanent weight of the plow.
If only they would use this much effort to make relic era realistic.
They’re essentially saying "there’s no way the US was able to make the abrams hull nigh impervious to modern darts, but Russia did it in a heart beat with the lil relic flaps that can be put just about anywhere!
Gaijin loves throwing data, statistics, and half truths at us untill it proves that their beloved Russian tanks aren’t supposed to be super armored battle beasts capable of tanking depleted uranium darts anywhere there’s relic
Something i’m actually currently studying and can answer! :D
There is a difference between “creep” ( Creep (deformation) - Wikipedia ) and “fatigue” ( Fatigue (material) - Wikipedia ) that happen in different situations and for different reasons. A metal can permanently deform if under constant stress even if the amount of force is not above the yield strength of the material (creep).
Yeah I’m aware it would cause a reduction in service life, my only question to him was if he could provide evidence that the reduction in service life is significant. If it actually mattered in practice it would be written somewhere.
