Now list me the reverse speed, reload rate, pen and gun depression of the T-90M and T-80BVM.
Gee I wonder why they have better armor, almost like they are just worse tanks than the Abrams even with their current armor advantage.
2 Likes
43 Likes
…it wouldnt
Hahaha I knew this is going to happen if they opted to increase the hull armor.
People will start to demand X amounts of protection based on hopes and dreams.
3 Likes
1 Like
You said:
As if there was no difference between a periodic cyclic loads and an added constant loads effect on service life. There very much is.
1 Like
Is this from 2021-2022?
1 Like
i already see people say that the Abrams’ lower plate has 2000 mm KE _=
The entirity of the russian tech trees past the 70s. Made up jibberish that blows up on itself more than half the time
4 Likes
Official U.S. Army technical manuals do not contain a specific sentence stating a 7,000 lb load ruins the suspension over 3 months, but they provide technical data requiring the removal of plow systems during storage and mandate hull clearance inspections for torsion bar permanent set. The operator’s manual (TM 9-2590-509-10) dictates that plows must be removed for long-term storage to prevent structural strain. The maintenance manual (TM 9-2350-255-20-1-3-4) confirms that sagging, which can be accelerated by constant heavy front loading, is the criteria for replacing suspension components.Also I don’t think I’m allowed to post that.
1 Like
Sources :
Nah its maybe 500 nothing crazy but definitely not 355
Hahahahah I remember when I made this one, it was like 2021.
Some things have changed ever since. Back then, Strv 122’s UFP was bugged and cluld be sliced through like a hot knife through butter and was armed only with DM33. Now that it has slurrp m/95 and fixed UFP… it no longer applies xD
I am now going to make a similar version, except with a potentially fixed SEPv3, thanks for reminding it to me! :P
6 Likes
Agreed there. Perhaps I worded it poorly. While the force applied during driving on rough terrain, for example, is intermittent instead of constant, that force is also significantly higher while applied. My point there was that if it can take that intermittent but much higher force without concern, there’s not much reason to assume with no backing evidence it cannot handle a couple tons on the LFP.
BUT IF it’s 500, YOU’RE ARGUING AND CRITICISING the game over something that won’t change a thing, because it’ll still be useless in the top tier, Given that it has already been stated that it will be increased
I have wanted about 500-520ish mm vs KE on the LFP from the moment the dev server went live. I hope they go at least for that. It would be a sweetspot for balance as well.
(I’m going to enjoy this tank so freaking much, haven’t been this hyped for a top tier ground vehicle since the air superiority update)
3 Likes
If you can quote it, you can post it. Check the front page of the manual for its classification status, assuming you have it on hand (you don’t, but you can probably google it realistically)
1 Like
I have been looking for SEPv3 ever since the 122s and 2A7s started coming, hahah.
Definitely the tank I have anticipated the most in these 6 years.
That’s why my disappointment will be equally as big if it turns out to be just yet another Same Exact (functionally) Protection…
5 Likes
According to Gaijin, even the CR.2’s L27a1 round can not pen a T80’s turret without ERA because they did “internal testing” and that’s what came forward. A round specifically designed to defeat a T80 with K5 cant do the job even when it doesn’t have K5 because their internal testing says so. So either their calculation for L27a1 is wrong, or their armour for all the T80’s is.
When CR.2 cant even get its spawl liners in the hull that have been reported and evidence has been given to their existence, but they can formulate a non existent turret basket, it’s no surprise that the Abrams gets the bad end of the stick as well.
They were even looking at adding a hydraulic line to the ammo compartment door to stop it from reloading if that pump was destroyed which was on the turret basket floor. Thankfully they removed that.
(note this has been removed now)
I genuinely don’t understand why this is happening.
When this update drops, Russia will have recieved a post 2020 vehicle 7 updates in a row, and not one of the T series tanks have received their turret basket yet despite heavy evidence of its existence.
The dev’s need to take into account that a lot of this information for NATO vehicles is not publicly available, or they will potentially keep asking for information we just cant provide ((as was done for the L27a1’s anti ERA capability report)) - Things have been added to Russia based on literally pamphlets and advertising materials ((such as the KH-38MT, and 2S38 being able to fire APFSDS)) meanwhile, for anything western you need to provide insane sources that some aren’t even available. It’s unfair, and it means that Russia have the benefit of having make believe stats. Texolite needs a full rework for example; its overperforming massively, however I don’t see that happening to the extent that they refuse to give the Abrams DU armour…
Edit: edited the post to be more “appropriate”
31 Likes
I don’t see anything about unclassified or classified