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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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???
I personally don’t see much of a reason for it not to be added, if the main selling point was simply its armor. People are focusing heavily on M829A3 when there’s only 2 available vehicles that can reliably deter it. NGAP, however, offers indiscriminate protection. An early addition with M829A2 would be very well balanced, and as more subvariants of nations’ tanks are added M829A3 would be an amazing round.
The T-90M has been stated to use the T-72 hull array of the 1990 pattern, while the interior / dimensions and overall capable are heavily documented.
The 2S38 is currently a public display test demonstrator. You could literally go to an arms expo and get inside it 4 years ago.
The Challenger 3TD is largely identical to the previous chally variants, only having a slightly bulkier hull and minor changes to the turret and systems.
Every defining factor of these vehicles is known. The defining feature of the SEPv3, being its new armor package, is not. Its systems are already known, its ammunition availability and interfacing systems are already known. Imagery and videos of the interior are already out to the public as well.
There’s simply nothing of substance that can be used, and claimed figures are few and far between.
It doesn’t, if you’d refrain from cherry picking my statements you’d understand what my counterpoint is.
For… What? Would you like me to cite a lack of evidence…?
Again, for what?
No? I’m trying to argue that some parts of the Leo turret are less armored than the Abrams.
But there were turret side, hull, and turret cheek armor improvements before SEPv3 (during the 1990s).
Gaijin already thinks it wouldn’t improve much, so I mean (in terms of what Gaijin thinks) I agree.
I doubt it would be modeled to have armor better than the Abrams’ current cheek armor, which would make it worse than the T-90M and 2A7V still.
But the armor is all we’re talking about, of which they are guessing.
The issue with that is that the 2S38 has purely theoretical (last time I checked) APFSDS and HE-VT rounds.
Gaijin could implement it anyways based on estimations, regardless. Waiting until they have enough information would mean that US top tier is always behind everyone else.
Something that would suggest not much has been modernized, yes.
Some small portions maybe, but why bring that up if you’re not trying to argue that the Abrams’ (in game) armor is not as bad as it actually is?
Gaijin’s Standard
The only thing ERA wrong in this game is the 90 degree impact angle but most the case where a rounds hit in game is mostly at engage angle.
This, they did not release any docs about KE protection, they only post the result with the most popular thread which is RPG-7, even their ERA’s STAGNAG standard also state for 30mm only, not for large caliber APFSDS
The only thing Gaijin should do is model the ERA base on percentage and pass-through effect for modern Darts, that’s all.
I’m jumping into the middle of a conversation, so apologies if I’m missing context, but the turret sides were definitely improved on production model M1’s, starting from the M1A2 SEP IIRC.