Most lowkey bait i’ve ever seen.
Comparing top tier tank with 11.7 and expecting similiar post pen with weaker shell suits perfect to you.
2 Likes
@Stona_WT did we convince you on the hull armor yet or do we need to give you some more proof?
2 Likes
There’s been basically no proof shown lmao half the time it’s just yapping about x top tier tank
2 Likes
Hello, @Smin1080p_WT !
I believe I’ve found out exactly the thought process Gaijin used to model M1A2 SEPv3’s hull armor, and, if it were the case, it would clear out a lot. May you be able to deny, or confirm this theory of mine?
As you can see, it provides exactly 445mm against KE at 500m, which is the precise penetration limit of Lanz-Oddermat’s 3BM42 at that range.
It would seem the reasoning was roughly: “Since 3BM42 was Russia’s workhorse APFSDS in 2017, it would be reasonable to assume that SEPv3’s armor was made just strong enough to withstand this shell beyond point-blank range, which would be unlikely in actual combat.”
After all, we must remember that 3BM60 wasn’t technically introduced until 2016, and while 3BM46 existed, it was also limited in availability and for T-80U only, etc.
In War Thunder, the armor feels underwhelming because it faces ammunition it was never realistically designed around, including NATO rounds and brand-new and limited Russian ammunition. In light of this, I think the current implementation may make more sense than I initially thought, although, for the sake of speculation, I think it should probably be entirely immune to this shell and not just beyond 500m, therefore matching the +35% KE value achieved by the proposed package back in the 1990s.
4 Likes
Hello
All of the background the devs used to arrive at the values for the Abrams are detailed in the blog we posted at the time: [Development] Regarding the Hull Armor of the M1A2 SEP V3 - News - War Thunder
I cant really elaborate any further or in any more detail than this, as it comes directly from the devs and I don’t have any more information that what we already explained here.
Whilst the package was a proposed one, we don’t have any clear information it was implemented. All sorts of proposals can be made for vehicles, but it doesn’t mean it was all necessarily implemented.
1 Like
Hmm, I see.
I read the blog, of course; the problem is that they put most emphasis on weight and volume considerations, but they don’t explain how exactly they came to the conclussion of the KE values they assigned to the module, which makes it appear they may not be taking into account that armor material technologies have advanced to a degree where improved protection doesn’t need to imply directly proportional increases of weight or volume as it could have been the case in the past.
What I mean is; they talked about how they reached the conclusion that armor was improved to a degree, but they didn’t detail how they chose the values they modelled.
Would there be any way to consult to them if my “theory” reflects their line of thought? If it could be confirmed/denied and more clarity could be brought into the matter, it could bring closure by knowing that the values may actually have been estimated with a relatively sensible reasoning and not arbitrarily selected exclusively over weight considerations that may not accurately depict reality.
Of course! The reasoning I propose isn’t “it was made, therefore it had to be implemented”; rather, “if they achieved +35% back in the 1990s, how couldn’t they possibly even reach half that value in the 2010s”?
2 Likes
There can be a number of reasons for that. Cost, production complexity, scale, feasibility and a great many other factors.
Its a bit like MBT-80 vs Challenger 1. In the end, the simpler and more cost effective solution (also due to circumstance) was chosen, despite MBT-80 perhaps being the “better tank” had it reached its apex.
2 Likes
I see. Interesting example, too!
The 445 mm KE at 500m figure seems far too specific to Lanz-Odermatt’s 3BM42 to be a coincidence, although there’s no way to know for certain without official confirmation. For the sake of closure, until (or unless) my theory is confirmed or disproven, I’d rather interpret this value as an intentional and reasonable choice than assume the SEPv3 is simply drastically underperforming as I’ve been believing since its release.
Basically, I’m giving the developers the benefit of the doubt so I can finally stop being bitter about it!
As always, thank you for the quick and serious responses to my consult. Have a great night!
Браво!
It is if I say it is. Who are you to say it’s not. Your last replay just had 3 squadmates with you.
.
4 squad members is a HUGE advantage…and I’m sure you earned your squad name…and that is the first match on your logs. Not gonna bother with any other or you.
1 Like
I can tell you he’s naturally good at the game.
He just needs to stop cheating is the problem.
As far as stats go, if you play in a squad it’s more natural for KPS and team placement to drop if you’re being carried the fact all are good means he is the carry.
1 Like
Second sentence is all I need. I don’t deal with people like that. Nothing he says will hold any water.
I know he just can’t help himself 👀
He’s hiding in plain sight and the Germans just can’t see him for some reason. I played a match with him and he was able to cap the D point I was like wtf!
2 Likes
I play plenty solo. And as you can see, I went 13-0 in that match :)
No denying that, but I can gladly point you to tanks I play solo.
Not sure what you mean.
Smh…
1 Like
I gave him a sandwich and he only took the center 💀
1 Like
you are an EVIL cheating CHUD magik. everyone knows this!
2 Likes
He did just beeline me in the back corner of the map so i just opted to leave the match so.
What kind of stupid logic is this lol? good players doesn’t hold water, while the opinions of players who are dogwater at the game suddenly holds every water?
The jokes write themselves
4 Likes