No?
1 Like
Then its not going be as armored as the T-90M.
I’m willing to bet my left kidney that the SEPv3 won’t even have 2A7 levels of armour protection.
1 Like
Its way nore vehicles. At high tier/ top tier russian ERA in generaly is overperformimg while gajin believes the west isnt capable to make ERA with KE protection.
Western countries lacking their era defeating capabilities
Western armor in general massively underperforming mostly across the board.
I can at least tell you the leopards have to low armor values, merkavas, challengers, leclercs as well
Then the whole volumetric mechanic which mostly affects russian vehicles and gives them ridiculous armor at times.
Russia benefits more often from the game as you might supposedly think
1 Like
What a clever contradictory statement that has no relation to the sentence you’ve mentioned!
Why is that?
With a change of transmission to a different one, T-80UE (dont confuse with T-80UE-1) did 80km/h in Greek tender.
Im not meaning it cant do 80 without transmission change, all MBTs speeds are usually capped at safe level.
2 Likes
Spoilered for off-topic
Wrong, we know that the turret sides have 100% been improved, the turret cheeks have had improved compounds, and non-DU-related hull armor improvements are likely. Additionally, due to the limit on DU hulls being removed in August 2006, potentially all post-2006 Abrams could have DU hulls. Additionally, the current armor in game is based on non-DU export armor packages, which have worse protection than the domestic DU packages.
They do not.
Why isn’t it in game already then, if it truly has only the armor of the T-90M?
Because everyone seems to think the Abrams must always have worse armor than the tanks it goes up against.
Because it’s Gaijin, and so far the current M1A2s don’t have armor as good as them?
but if it is classified, do you have any evidence that the nato armour is underperforming and the russian armour is overperforming?
Although i dont have any high tier vehicles yet from test drive and protection analysis the abrams have way too much armour in my opinion.
Back to my point, i think the “russian bias” BS is just an excuse by players that are biased towards western tanks or people who are just trash at the game. i used to also complain about it until i learnt some useful tips on how to take out the t-34.
Back on topic, you can argue about what i just said but there is NO argument against adding the t-14, that is for sure.
2 Likes
And do exactly that? The state of things right now are grinding war of attrition with tanks, more often than it should, delegated to the role of (relative) short range artillery. Under such condition use them is just wasteful
Less wasteful than fighting with T-62/T-54?
1 Like
Compere numbers, even more optimistic, of built T-14s versus approximation of how many just T-62 in storage. Again, using shiny new tank to act as glorified artillery is waste of resources
1 Like
Recent footage taken near Kurakhove shows that tanks are still being used for their intended purpose and in large numbers. In such operations, a next-generation tank with good armor and active protection systems would perform excellently.
1 Like
Perhaps. Although it could be argued about one instance in much large picture, in which this case is an exception. In any case I still think T-14s not being deployed mainly for two reasons: 1)The state of the battlefield prevent effective use of them and 2) Russia lacks industrial capacity to mass produce and maintain the new generation of MBTs
there are sources and proven ones, as example leopards, swedish trials gajin choose the worse generation of armor for ingame implementation.
for all others as well there are multiple soruces, but gajin often only accepts specific armor values and not describes like can defend again threat x at distance etc
same as well for anti era capabilities, gajin even had at one point it coded in but decided to not put it into the live game
if you know how the volumetric mechanic works you can check in game literaly that russian tanks benefit the most of it
i am not an abrams expert so i am not gonna get into the ring with you on that one. I would believe to say you are wrong, but thats sth someone else needs to prove
again there is prove for circumstances
did i do that? i only showed you your mistakes in your argument. I dont mind it, the T-14 will open the door to A LOT of german tech
1 Like
@Flogger_cbs @DarKBird fair warning, discussing what you are doing will get your message removed and you guys possibly banned.
gajin does not like politicts specialy active wars
Sorry, but frontal assaults using armored vehicles are not an exception or a single case. And why do T-62s participate in them, but not modern tanks?
Thank you.
you can take it to private messages, but not recommended in threads itself
Thanks. Well then, back to regular schedules program of “Russian bias” and “Why WESTFOR tanks modeled wrong”
Yes. hence why I said 1984. Improved patterns gave it a slight increase in protection, though it has remained relatively unchanged until NGAP.
That’s one of the main selling points of NGAP, yes. I feel the promise of hull improvement on the SEPv3 can be a very sound aspect of the vehicle.
Because it’s such a recent vehicle that key aspects are still unknown. Exact armor figures are purely speculatory, which is the primary holdback. Apart from that, it adds nothing new. ADL systems are irrelevant in WT, and the SEP / SEPv2 are already capable of firing M829A3.
Because it has an objectively bad and outdated design. Very few aspects of it have been modernized in the past, and the SEPv3 touches up on key focus points that were overlooked previously for varying reasons.
Historically, it’s been behind since the '80s. The introduction of a 120mm variant came almost 2 decades after the 125mm was commercially applied to WP tanks, and contemporary 120mms were already in use since the '60s.
There is a LARGE stigma surrounding the Abrams because of its prior history of design and implementations. The SEPv3 is one of the most recent outliers where things were legitimately changed for the better (in terms of aspects that can be used in-game), and that’s why I find it stupid that you apply the “abruhms bad” strawman to the SEPv3.
How so? Some parts of the Leo turret are less armored than the Abrams, and they share somewhat similar weak areas. The Leo hull is notoriously weak (unless counting E packages), and the turret roof faces the same issues as the Abrams.
Spoilered for off-topic
There were improvements after that, though.
NGAP was not used in the late 1990s, afaik.
It would have been, if it was added with the Leo 2A7V, Strv 122B+, and T-90M. If it’s added with the next generation of tanks (going off of Gaijin’s estimates, which will likely be massively underestimates) it will be essentially useless.
Then why was the T-90M, 2S38, or Challenger 3 TD added, if speculation truly is beyond Gaijin?
And this disproves my point that it should’ve been added with the 2A7V and T-90M how?
Source needed.
Again, source needed.
You’re really trying to argue that the Abrams has better armor protection right now than the Leo 2A7V???