Hnnnnnnggggghhhhhhhh T-72B3 2.6 KDR, that is actually pretty impressive bro
I guess I won’t bother to respond, then.
Is this guy ACTUALLY clearly angling the camera downwards to increase the angle on purpose?
I can’t believe no one called him out.
3 Likes
no no no well maybe yes…
2 Likes
When using protection analysis, you’re supposed to aim the camera at the center of the hull (vertically) if you’re aiming at the hull and the center of the turret (vertically) if you’re aiming at the turret. It’s just how you get accurate data.
(S)he doesn’t seem to be doing that.
The impact angle in the screenshot is 68°, that means it’s correctly shown.
Here’s an explaination why 95% of people mis-use the armour analysis tool because they get the camera angle incorrect:
5 Likes
100% true. Although, a 10m shot will have a downwards angle that will more significantly reduce the effective thickness of the UFP.
All 3 examples in that image are wrong.
1 and 2- No gun is mounted that high.
3- No gun is mounted that low.
You AT MOST put your gun between the tip of the barrel and the roof of the hull.
You do not go below the roof of the hull, and you don’t go above the breech of the gun [this one needs to be stated as T-80’s gun is angled down by 1 degree in its resting position].
This is really down to simple geometry and basic maths.
The math is explained in the image itself, if you take issue with it, I’d suggest doing the math yourself and you’ll come to the same conclusion.
2 Likes
not 100% true , because all tanks are not the same height its like if you Abrams looking at a t80 You have an extra 2 ft over a t80 the closer you are to the t80 the gun will start pointing down.
Yes, you’re right.
That’s why I said ‘Although, a 10m shot will have a downwards angle that will more significantly reduce the effective thickness of the UFP.’
This especially is the case if your tank is much higher, so the angle will be much greater at 10m with Abrams vs T-80 hull at 10m than Abrams vs Abrams hull at 10m.
So, unless you are shooting the tank at 0m in protection analysis, 500m+ the angle should be effectively 0 degrees, and you should aim your camera to be at 0 degrees to where you are trying to hit.
These lines are techinically not straight, so they will converge to one point (which is where the breech of your hypothetical tank is), but they’re effectively parallel to one another at 500m+
2 Likes
1: still doesn’t have volumetric modelled
2: In real life you can’t aimbot the turret ring on the move like you can in game, and no other MBT in game has such an egregious weakspot.
4 Likes
To be fair, Ariete, Leclerc, and Type 10 all have abysmal lower plate armour, with the Ariete suffering the most from it because it doesn’t get a fuel tank covering the ammo, unlike the Type 10 or Leclerc.
Type 10 also has a pretty large turret ring weakspot, but definitely not as noticable as the Abrams’.
However, Type 10 and Leclerc can be penned (and killed) frontally by ADATS’ 25mm APDS. All three can also be penned and killed frontally by 25mm / 30mm APFDS. This is the same with the Abrams, with its turret ring weakspot. For an MBT, not being able to survive direct auto-cannon fire from the front, by IFVs or SPAAs, is pretty awful.
Leclerc, Challenger 2 mantlet malding rn:
Ariete having zero weak spot cuz everywhere is a weakspot.
1 Like
Challenger 2’s mantlet cannot be penned by 30mm APFSDS, but it is pretty weak compared to other MBTs’ mantlets.
The lower front plate can also be somewhat penned by 30mm APFSDS though.
1 Like
Yeah, but atleast those tanks are known to be poorly modelled everywhere in WT, and its a much worse problem.
It atleast looks like Abrams has amror, but really has an easy front one shot spot. All those do too, but Gaijin isn;t even hiding it for them.
Merkava after being one shot in the front plate (it hit at a nearly parallel angle)
1 Like
At least Merkavas can survive 30mm APFSDS from the front xD
What I’m getting here is that Merkava has overall mediocre armour, Ariete has no armour, while the Abrams, Type 10, and Leclerc have good armour and no armour.
2 Likes
To add to this, because of how small the turret ring gap is on the Abrams, 120mm and 125mm APFSDS penetrators would have to aim within a handful of mm’s to be able to fit into the space between the turret and hull.
Even with War Thunder’s overly accurate aiming (compared to irl), that is straight up too small of an area to work. Any turret ring shot to an Abrams (except in the spot right under the smoke grenades in the image below) should not be able to reach the turret ring.
5 Likes
Glad you admit the math is easy.
You don’t go in-line with the center of hulls; as you said the math is simple.