Hello hi I have much higher wr in NATO tanks than Russian ones :)
2 Likes
Ahahahha Stop making me laugh already.
At least you can laugh about your own skill issue, I lowkey respect that.
7 Likes
as the distance of the POV looking at Abrams increases, the ratio of LFP:UFP gets greater; or surfaceAreaLFP/surfaceAreaUFP become greater. Of course if you are above the turret and ~30? meters away, the UFP and LFP will look equal. It’s like a limit equation: if you extend the POV of the camera out to infinity meters, the LFP become a much larger surface area from the POV in comparison to the UFP.
Well, after update drops and M829A3 alongside it, I expect the 12.0-13.0 russian winrates to plummet, no more W to victory
Implying you could do that already…
Well there will still be plenty of players like Dead_Undertaker that will need to be carried, so I don’t have that much faith in winrates plummeting.
What’s this nonsense about needing two extra tons just to stop 1980s-vintage APFSDS rounds? Are they implying U.S. composite armor tech is no better than Russia’s Soviet-era blindly stacked steel plates?
Hell, even back in the 1990s, the Germans engineered a crew-killing level armor package—boosted protection by up to 70%—for under three tons. That upgrade included:
Composite armor slabs wrapping the turret ring and roof
Composite inserts for the hull sides
Full-coverage spall liners along the hull
And all this while adding significant volume to the armor array.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been redefining armor efficiency for thirty years—with weight-to-performance ratio being a core design driver from day one.
13 Likes
Can I note that that the mine protection on the SEP V3 is significantly lighter than previous versions, I dont know if you took that into account when calculating the weight increase for the body protection but the source is https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a2c.htm.
Also the armor plate above the hulls NERA should be 38.1mm instead of 19mm. On older Abrams variants it can be argued that its only 19mm and looks thicker because of the welding. But on any close up front picture of the SEP V3 its clear that its much thicker than 19mm, logically 38.1mm as the rest of the upper front plate. That would be a realistic buff that could actually help a little against KE penetrators.
7 Likes
RIP this mf here man xD
4 Likes
I’d love to see where the bug reporting manager somehow read it all went to the turret, when they previously said there was nothing to specify the changes.
I found this screenshot on the forum, idk which bug report its on. Sry
I guess I’m just curious as to what the developers lose by giving the SEPV3 the correct or more accurate armor? What is the cost of correctly or accurately modeling the more modern Abrams as intended? Is there money on the line?
I see you removed references to classified documents…
We all know gaijin uses them
2 Likes
Just a heads up, forum mods are cleaning up comments on this thread and forums in general which call out company’s behavior on this subject and game balancing in general. Third post of mine got deleted for “inappropriate content” where no content of such is.
5 Likes
it doesn’t matter since the aussie SEPv3 is still built to v3 standards and that includes the hull armor upgrade.
images of the weld line on US SEPv3’s exist its just easiest to see on that image
in theory in perfect world the ausie one would be worse thx to no DU armor.
The only problem is that the M829A3 is effective only against Kontakt-5, and they’ve practically separated BR 12.7 from tanks equipped with Kontakt-5.