I’ve been bug reporting this game for years; however it often leads nowhere. Many bugs get either bypassed or marked as “accepted” only to be thrown into a void never to be finished.
Source?
1 Like
ignore him he 100% a russian or china player, anything about NATO is bad and USSR good
thats his counter argument lol
Ik just messing with him lmao
1 Like
Would like to second this. Like what examples?
I’m so sorry, I’m Main America
Guys this is about the Abrams go to the Russian Bias topic
Military equipment is very likely at the forefront of technical advancements and often work at the edges of what is possible to do in the first place, so my personal assumption would be yes. A doser blade won’t be mounted continuously, only when needed. Armor would be a permanent change (unless it’s “drop-in” inserts that are not mounted during peace times, which the hull likely isn’t).
1 Like
OK, you’ve already lost the argument.
i think its YOU who lost bro
8 Likes
At the very least the devs acknowledged armor improvements were made but, can someone explain to me why there is a huge disconnect with the devs and the bug reporting managers?
Had this been part of a bug report, it’ll most likely be denied by the same mods:
and many more.
A simple “verification in progress” and a brief summary of what the devs are doing would’ve sufficed. It just get rid of any sort of credibility or authority the mods have.
22 Likes
None of this looks like an Abrams or armor of an Abrams to me
Is that so? Just because the russians aren’t capable of standardisation and have to redesign their planes to mount ordinance doesn’t mean the same thing applies to everyone else
That wasn’t his point. “Instead of Y, lets look at X”. Pure whataboutism.
If you think this is reasonable that’s on you. There is a major double standard at play.
Until they show it, I’ll believe it. This is gajin knowing them they’ll increase the CE by 300mm and increase the KE by 20mm
1 Like
Nah it’s more like: ill do it but im asking you to do the same kinda thing
Hey guys. It’s the guy who worked Abrams development.
A USMC veteran on the M1A1 Abrams tank: “This tank was designed for assault!” - News - War Thunder
First off. Brilliant work. This was a thorough and absolutely sound evaluation of available information.
Second, your conclusion, highlighted in the quote above, is not inaccurate.
HOWEVER, you are failing to understand the magnitude of the issue.
Exhibit A:
This is the Track-Width Mine Plow. Standard equipment for one tank in four to 2 tanks in 14 depending on the situation. It weighs several tons and can be used for months on end without significant logistical challenges.
Exhibit B:
This is the Dozer Blade. Used on the M1A1 FEP by the USMC for over a decade before the USMC retired all of their Abrams.
This too has significant weight, though it is much lighter than the TWMP.
When using these devices on long term (six month or longer deployments) crewman and mechanics will often INDEX the front one or two torsion bars. Indexing is where you rotate how the suspension arm so it is at higher tension at rest. You rotate the arm’s connection to the torsion bar. Or at least that is the best way I can explain it. This higher tension improves the angle of the tank while it is operating with the TWMP or Dozer Blade. Although the blade is generally lighter and you face less of an issue.
These suspension components may break more often than standard but it is not a significant amount. In fact regular suspension components break all the time. The whole tank is very heavy and the suspensions we use are at the very limit of our metalurgical and engineering technology. In fact suspension repairs is perhaps the most common repair done to Abrams of all types.
The reason we make armor improvements to a tank is because it is to address vulnerabilities. And while I will not discuss capabilities or our assessments I will remind everyone here that combat in real life is not at all what it is like in War Thunder. Obviously. So whatever is done to the tank is not done based on what happens in a simulation like War Thunder.
Finally, in my opinion, the fact that the DU hull armor was tested and fielded effectively on five Abrams’ hulls is sufficient justification to add them to the game. IT is not only possible, it is probable that should the need arise it would be done. It is not “fake” at all. In fact it is more real (many years of training use of these tanks) than several of the prototypes we have in game.
I recognize that this is an opinion. I also recognize that while Gaijin has a completely logical reason not to add the armor, I also know they are overstating the logistical side of the problem. If the armor was necessary we could immediately adapt with a slight increase in wear on a few suspension components. We also have modified the suspension before to adapt it to the increased weight of Vehicles like the M1A1 HC, FEP, and M1A2 SEP.
Thank you for your time and reasoned consideration.
36 Likes
I just realized that the sepv3 dont got APS, or at least in this blog, though a different abrams gets APS?
I might be slow, I didnt test dev but why isnt the APS in the m1a2 sep v3??
3 Likes
They provide little to no source info when buffing Soviet vehicles but suddenly they have a high burden of proof?
10 Likes