Not rate baiting
Didn’t see the video
2nd video there was a delay but for some reason counted the round as hitting the driver???
If you slow it down you see the spark at the rear which explains why it took the engine out but the driver??? Tf?
1st clip with that it depends on the round, the worse your internet connection the more wonky things can be. Managing a team from Europe playing NA servers I’ve gone back and watched their replays and stuff gets weird.
Reason I bring the round you use into it btw is because there may not be enough penetration left for it to do anything more. (Yes this is a thing and it’s not just you or US tanks, it can be observed even with the DM53 round from the leopards which that’s rare but anyway)
Basically the game says you don’t have the penetration left to do anything else so you either make the crew yellow or kill that crew member or module then do nothing more. Yes your network delay can do something to it
Also if you’re referring how you didn’t kill the T-80 with a side shot to the engine it’s only a chance. Best chance for killing the T-80 and to observe this effect is to shoot the gunners side fuel tank head on.
It should net closer to a 50%-60% chance of killing the tank in one shot
Even though you only hit 1 crew member and no ammo
Actually, he can. It’s only 20mm in this part. At least based on the fact that the hit camera clearly shows the armor piercing through by two objects, it looks like it did.
Unfortunately low video quality and lack of hit replays does not allow to check.
This was due to his network. I slowed it way down, when he fires the shot it’s towards the back of the autoloader. The round itself then lands at the back of the engine compartment confirmed by the sparks
Yes, that is true. And the sabot hit lower side plate and kill driver
- The Armata IS better than the abrams. There’s no debate to be has there.
- If Russia’s Armata isn’t that advanced, why did it come out 7 years before everyone else scrambled to copy it?
How so? They’ve proven quite effective. Drones have made any vehicle irrelevant though.
I don’t see what’s weird here.
Add your ping
And your packet loss percentage.
Then deploy it and conquer europe with it then.
Does any country send their newest vehicles into combat? No. Why? They don’t want it to be captured.
I’m assuming they’re working on anti drone warfare with it.
Quit the glaze buddy.
I thought the reason USA was so scared by foxbat was bc they saw it go mach 3 on radar and also saw it at Soviet airbase or airshow (I forgot which) and it looked kind of similar to USA advanced fighter concepts
Facts are facts, unless you can dispute them. ;)
Israel got their first F-35 in 2016 and used them in combat 2018
Where? They have been basically useless from Iraq to Lebanon to Chechnya to Syria. In Ukraine they were useless BEFORE drone warfare became a thing. They are a terrible design and the T-80’s have fared no better. The only real success they had was in Georgia, but that was a rather brief affair and the Georgians didn’t really fight back.
T-72/T-90 and T-64/T-80 are both fundamentally flawed designs that use archaic technology. The carousel autoloader is colossally stupid on many, many levels. It’s slow. It’s overly complicated. It’s a death sentence from a survivability standpoint. From there it is just typical Russian technological problems. Poor breech design. Poor gun tube quality. Poor ammunition quality. Poor automotive performance due to weak and archaic engines. The only good sensors/fire control they have are all foreign made. And even then, they cannot fully compensate for the poor quality of the guns and ammunition. The secondary weapons are inferior to those used on western tanks. The reliance on reactive armor reduces their already poor survivability. They have no competent APS. All in all they are the bottom of the barrel from a tank perspective. K-1 and K-2. Type 90 and Type 10. M1 series. Leopard II series. Challenger I/II series. Merkavas. Those are all substantially better tanks. They are only competitive against Chinese tanks and that’s only because Chinese tanks are Russia knockoffs.
In no way are they worth the money. Even if you could buy 4 for the price of every Abrams (which you can’t for modern variants) it’s a waste of money.
The historical record is crystal clear.
You mean the petal that is flipping through the air somehow goes straight like a dart and maintains enough energy to pen through a slopped piece of armor? If that’s how Gaijin has that modeled, they need to fix that
do you know if they have more armor or not or you look at ingame abrams and base it on ur opinion
abrams + relikt = best protection for the crew
there isnt as much leopard as abrams, and there isnt much relikt since they all slap it on abrams, point being?
propose your own design then, it aint that hard. If you think the armor of abrams are poorly optimized you are not educated enough
actually no, the engine deck is big enough to redesign to fit a smaller engine. It can also incoporate more armor by slapping composite on it, the original abrams was design to keep this in mind hence they dont need a new tank for better armor, they can just upgrade the current one
“outdates” keep up with modern stuff, its not outdates if it works well against modern tanks
yeah and whats the sources for that
the protection on the Type 10 isnt that great either, it has quite some flaws to its design but thats what the engineer at mitsubishi did. The armor is also classified, the current ingame armor isnt correct so dont base ur opinion on that nor the abrams
hell you shouldnt get facts from war thunder at all
T-14 all and all is just a prototype, it was more invested in because the T-90M was deemed ineffective and outdate like you said right?
you dont even know the armor of the Armata itself or Type 10, Abrams or anything, all you based of are war thunder model which are close enough or wrong(type 10, ztz, abrams, chally, merkavas, etc…)
you say alot but 0 evidences, 0 proofs, 0 basis
no thats actually depend on the situation or the war itself
still no proof of that
newer doesnt mean better
also correction on one of ur comments
Abrams X isnt in production because its expensive its not in production because its not a tank, its a tech demo mock up on what the abrams could be if it incoporate modern design and different ideas in a tank, its like another version of the CATTB which is essentially abrams with autoloader, smaller but equally if not better engine, 140mm gun, way way more armor(still on an M1A1 modified chasis)