Reminder that the only reason the new BMPT can penetrate your M1 Abrams from the front is a single outstanding, accepted, bug report that Gaijin has ignored now for two years. (Community Bug Reporting System).
While other vehicles have received extremely quick armor fixes, the Abrams still suffers from a catastrophic survivability issue due to Gaijin’s flawed 3 dimensional model, and as I proved in my bug report, it is indisputable that the turret ring is in fact, a complex shape that is impossible to be a uniform 50.8mm thick in all areas.
Not to be dramatic, but this is genuinely an enormous game changing model screw up for USA and China’s top tier MBT, to not be killed instantly by Gepard, BMPT, or BMP-2M spray in your general direction.
No way it’s still 50.8mms and it should be a bit over 250mm LOS. It simply shouldn’t struggle let alone be frontally dusted by the BMPT (unless you get barreled).
how does one release NINE abrams models over the years and somehow be so neglectful towards them?
i mean… the KVT and clickbait are their precious cashcows, surely they’ll get some attention right?
Why have other armor model issue examples over the years have been fixed basically instantaneously? Yes there are a lot of others that are outstanding, but some clearly get special treatment or priority over others.
Well, it should be considered a “bug” in my opinion. It’s a blatant oversight of the vehicle’s protection.
That doesn’t even include the outstanding gun rotor report, and fuel cell bulkheads report. This vehicles protection is completely gimped.
It’s also important to note that, the actually turret ring protection shield can simply be fixed with a coding change to make the 3D armor model already current in game, just volumetric… Gaijin has done this for vehicles in the past, where they just change a 3D model to volumetric. The other issue I highlighted in my report, should also absolutely be considered a bug… there is a literal GAP in the internal turret ring protection.
Gun rotor, gun mantlet, turret cheeks, turret ring, fuel cell bulkhead thicknesses on the upper front plate and lower front plate, and hydraulic pump location. Turret ring and run rotor are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to Abrams armor problems that Gaijin has ACCEPTED and is aware of, but still will not fix
Artificially created frontal weak spot, a turret basket the size of Texas, an utterly incorrect mantlet and to rub salt in the wounds, a hydraulic sump pump which disables the turret drive for no real reason.
Is it the worst? No, the challenger 2 with its also screwed up mantlet, crippled mobility, very dodgy armour modelling and a refusal to fix the ready rack count is the worst but don’t pretend the Abrams doesn’t have issues inflicted on it by gaijin.
I’m guessing you’re referring to the weakness of the turret ring here, but even if changed to the correct protection values, it would still be a highly vulnerable weakspot.
If you’re referring to the size of the turret ring: It’s correctly modeled the way it currently is.
Oh, so you believe the Strv 122’s, Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7HU are also pretty poor tanks? They’ve also got those turret baskets of course.
Long story short: Getting hit at top-tier is bad. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a Leclerc, T-80BVM or M1A2, getting caught off guard is usually a death sentence regardless.
Most MBT’s in War Thunder have problems with the way their mantlets are modeled, at least the M1’s mantlets aren’t close to being the largest in size nor are they close to being the weakest.
There being issues doesn’t change the fact that it’s among the best MBT’s in the entire game.
The Leopard 2A7V is among the most underperforming and poorly modeled MBT’s across the game’s history, doesn’t change the fact that it’s the #1 best MBT we’ve got together with it’s Swedish and Hungarian peers.
They’re decent tanks, but then they don’t have the turret ring issue or the sump pump issue. The things work together and cannot be taken in isolation.
Sure, and yet only the Abrams has the additional mos modelled traverse mechanism. Many other tanks will survive a bad shot or get lucky with a hit that penetrates, the Abrams will have its turret drive knocked out. I honestly can’t remember the last time I knocked the turret traverse out on a t series tank.
None of that means it’s ok.
These things are clearly done for balance, let’s just be honest and admit it.
Unfortunately, Chinese players are also unable to provide assistance. Many aspects related to Chinese players face similar issues as the Abrams. For instance, suggestions regarding the interior lining of the Type 99A tank were submitted years ago but still have not been implemented. Similar cases include the penetration capability of Chinese top-tier main battle tank shells (such as the VT4 shell, based on confidential manuals leaked by Thailand), the lower frontal armor protection of the VT5 (the data has been submitted, but as you know, it’s “not a bug”), and various other model inaccuracies.
Sometimes I think we need to put aside our mutual biases and help each other fight for what should have been there in the first place—such as the air-to-ground missiles that China should actually have, the AGM-84H and GBU-53 for American players, various multi-mode seeker JDAMs, and the aircraft genuinely equipped by the USAF in the 21st century, like the AESA version of the F-15E and upgraded AIM-120 missiles—rather than allowing certain factions to continue receiving overpowered additions that don’t reflect reality (like the R-77-1) or things that don’t even exist (such as the Su-30SM2 and Kh-38MT, which are not actually in service with the Russian military; the in-game Su-30SM2 doesn’t even have a real prototype).
