T-80B should be buffed or its br lowered

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+

1 Like

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.


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.

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.

1 Like

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.



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.

Sanguine did a detailed break-down on the math.
You then proceeded to dismiss it without offering any counterarguments or mathematical explaination of your own.

That really just ends the discussion at that point.


What are you talking about?
Sanguine posted the same math I used, there was nothing to dismiss.
He confirmed my statements as true.

it does

In real life you can’t repair an engine in 30 seconds either, it’s a game

Every single Soviet/Russian top tier has an instakill viewport and LFP, the entire Leclerc hull is one giant weakspot, the entire Ariete is a weakspot.

The T-80B also has dogshit sight zoom compared to Leopard 2A4 and M1 Abrams, when you can’t zoom as well as others then the enemy’s weak spot will appear to be smaller, then your tank will appears to be bigger for them lol

Hey, as a soviet player, at least it got variable zoom.
Now take a T-72B with much stronger armour and twice horrible sights because now they are fixed magnification, and without any reverse speed as well as bad mobility in general.

I actually rate T-64B a better mbt than the T-72B, on top of having better zoom it also has more gun depression.

Yep, the only real downside before T-72B is inferior engine power.

Your statement was that you should ‘put your gun (camera) between the tip of the barrel and the roof of the hull’ and that you should not ‘go below the roof of the hull’.

In that case, if you were trying to use the protection analysis to shoot the lower front plate of a T-80 at 500m, for example, you would be making a downwards angle that is much more than it truly is, as you would have effectively shot it at a very close distance.
Your statement is not correct.

You, instead, have to aim your camera such that it is exactly at the same plane as the piece of armour you’re trying to shoot at. This obviously changes depending on the round used, as lower velocity shells have more bullet drop, which may affect the angle at which it hits the armour, but for high velocity APFSDS rounds, and at ranges we’re talking about, it’s quite negligible.

At 10m or so, the downwards angle can be significant enough for you to take into consideration that your hypothetical tank breech is higher than the lower front plate.

Exactly? So “its a weakspot irl” isn’t a good argument either

To be fair, top tier Russian MBTs’ viewports and LFPs are not always a consistent 1-shot kill opportunity, as fuel tanks, the breech, and the fact that sometimes the ammunition doesn’t detonate, all get in the way. Although, getting their breech via viewport shot almost every time is nice.
The LFP is much smaller compared to the LFP of the Abrams, as well as the LFP of something similar, like the Chinese ZTZ99As.


I personally go for the hull roof line, or in the case of T-72 up to its barrel tip since it sits so low and all but Abrams will have at least an extra half meter above its barrel height.

I’ll keep shooting the T-series ammo since I don’t experience the bug you do.