Yes, but then they also made it for the China. And im pretty sure that if it wasnt for china, we wouldnt have it still… Tho its a conspiracy, i want to point out that USSR werent the only ones who got that.
Well, their reports are also aging now, and with that rebalance i think we can wait now that they also will take over the Japs
Sure is. Having add. 5 tonne on Challenger 2 without added protection is a joke.
At least they made so Abramses do have different protection even having same NERA sizes
Neither Leopard nor Abrams are firing incompatible ammo.
If you think DM53 can’t be fired out of Leopard 2A7V, neither can DM73… imagine getting stuck with DM43…
@xLORD_ZAPx
So Gemini AI is producing wrong data and should be avoided.
Thanks for warning us not to trust what Gemini AI states.
The fact that Gemini claims Abrams has spall liners when it doesn’t, and omits Leopard 2s getting them instantly is proof enough.
First of all I only mentioned Leopard, not Abrams.
Current Abram’s can use M829A2 despite the shell itself already out of service in Us Army.
Standart DM53 is can’t be fired from L55/A1, if you don’t know this then it’s your problem not mine.
DM73 is complete new shell and designed to be fired from L55/A1 cannon from the beginning, meanwhile DM53 is almost two decades old and was designed for L44 cannon initially.
DM53 wasn’t designed for the OG L/44, too high of pressure. Which is why DM43 is fired at most.
The only way DM53 cannot be fired is if the newer cannon has a lower chamber pressure limits, which would impact DM73 as well.
DM53 went into service 1998, If I remember correctly. It was started to phase out DM53 roughly a decade before 2A7V entered service. Last shells of the DM53 family (DM53A1) were given away four years ago. All before the A7 entered service. DM53 is not even coded in their fire control computers anymore. Means they indeed can’t practically fire it. The computer wouldn’t recognize the shell, if loaded.
Even if it would have been possible: Bundeswehr wouldn’t ever allow to use these shells with their precious L/55A1 high pressure guns. Barrel wear of DM53 is too high. Standard shells are DM73 (DM63 penetrator + more propellant for higher pen) and soon the new DM83 (everything newly designed). As far as I know DM73 and DM83 can only be fired with L55A1 high pressure guns.
“The whole has an equivalent of 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHA on the turret front against all chemical energy rounds, and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) for kinetic energy penetrators (APFSDS or “sabot” rounds). The M1 also tried in operations reactive armor over the track skirts to defeat RPGs, mostly encountered in an urban environment, or slat armor (rear and rear fuel cells) against ATGMs. A Kevlar liner prevents any spalling.”
The threat simulant was the BRL 127mm Shaped Charge, this achieved 636mm of LoS penetration at 60°.
Chemical Energy protection lies somewhere between 636-750mm, some sources (linked below) indicate 700mm or 750mm.
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
If you’re referring to later models, you shouldn’t call it the ‘‘M1 Abrams’’, and there still isn’t any (authoritative) source that estimates the protection to be so high.
False.
Once again, M1 Abrams was required to defeat 115mm Soviet APFSDS within a 60° frontal arc and at 800-1200 metres distance.
Threat simulant used was XM579E4 with 322mm of LoS penetration @ 60°.
Kinetic Energy protection lies somewhere between 322-350mm at normal. (refer to some of the sources above).
Later DU-equipped variants are stated to lie between 600-650mm of KE protection within a 60° frontal arc.
False.
Later variants did, not the M1 Abrams.
False.
There’s not been a single authoritative source provided that indicates the M1 Abrams or it’s later variants (excluding engineering vehicles and such) utilize Kevlar spall liners.
gaijin is again at it… while removing bmpts from 10_2 lineup after few months of outrage and nearly 90% win rate and milking it to the bone, they added there T72B3 arena… top armored top dart T72 with hard kill APS… russia (irl technologically suffering) is only nation with APS in 9_2 and 10_2 lineups… not to mention that T72 with top shell and best armor with APS vs those few IFV that have some degree of ATGM (which is at most absolutely trash because it gets stopped even by Kontakt-5) and Leopard A4 or M1 (yes that one with paper armor and 105 gun). Add Leo A5 and, M1A2 and Challenger 2 (another one) or just remove Arena from there… iam sick of your “balance” when russia gets best of best vs mediocre which in most cases doesn’t even work in game because you absolutely cannot model it properly (spike, nato NERA or armor)
there is why hate russian “biass” on perfect shot no nera hitted and the autoloader eat spalling from ammo and crew…+ other t 80 storred me in turret no pen but i die… yeah dont fix the game…
Ah yes, no ammo explosion and the autoloader that’s very closely bound to the horizontal and vertical drive, breach control and some other components has no effect on them :)
lol Sorry, but M1A2 is superior to your precious T-series tanks.
There’s a reason I’ve witnessed more turrets fly in War Thunder than has occurred in history.
