İ experienced that quite a lot, funny my Type-90’s are actually better then my Abrams when it comes to surviving despite bein smaller and having less crew.
1 Like
Again, prove it.
You don’t seem to understand how this works… But sure, I’ll take the burden of proof, as you’re seemingly too incompetent to do so.
M1
Leo 2A4
Leclerc S.1
Looks about on-par with stat selections of other vehicles…
If you can find any figure that artificially raises spall for the Abrams (you can’t, it’s entirely dictated by projectile stats), by all means… Show it.
How many years has it been since they’ve added volumetric to the IS-3? The M60? Every Centurion? Not even the FV4202 has it, and that’s been one of the most egregious tanks apart from the IS-3.
Again, show proof of such. I’m not going to continue entertaining your delusions if all you say is “b-b-but it should be better!11!”
Better than what? Better than it is now? According to what? Is it just a “trust me bro” kind of thing?
That seems to be the basis of you complaining about its armor… All you’ve whined about is “it has more spall” or “it doesn’t have enough armor”… That sounds exactly like somebody crying that their tank isn’t unkillable.
I am…?
Yeah, sure. I guess I am now.
Couldn’t care less.
This is nothing but a visual model complaint. The document given shows a general model of… Wait for it… NERA. It is not visually modelled in WT, as NERA modifications are implemented in stats, not model.
Submitted as suggestion.
Ah yes, my three favorite firsthand sources… “The Tank Book”, “tanks-encyclopedia.com”, and “overtdefense.com”. Better yet, we have somebody linking a Canadian book!
It’s a wonder how these people are allowed to share space in the forum…
3 Likes
these are just things you made up, the Abrams fuel tanks eat spalling like you’d expect and they don’t detonate and kill the crew like Sov fuel tanks
it’s a weakspot irl
According to the Swedish trials the hull is still overperforming, yes
5 Likes
İ dont see any similiar Numbers between 3 pictures, is this what you call evidence? Also i specifically asked number comprasion from the time when M1 Abrams was added, purposely avoding vital point is always your best thing looks like.
Except Abrams family is more famous then those tanks and its one of the core family at top tier, not surprised you did ignored that part.
İ posted countless reports at the end my reply, seems like you didnt eben bother to read, how shocking…
Didnt realized you could read minds oh wait you cant actually, you’re just making conspirecy theories and throwing empty claims, another cheap bait.
Didnt Show a single hard evidence except some Numbers,now where was your evidence smart guy?
Truth hurts doesnt? Seems like you to ignore hard evidence when someone throws it at your face.
Much better then your empty claims considering i dont see any source from you, btw where is the source about T80B’s thermal sight? İm still waiting and let me remind you dont confuse T80BV source with T80B, i assume you can do that much.
3 Likes
They dont always, now that is just made up.
Nobody Said anything about exploding, you ok? Also explosive fuel tanks are not something special to Soviet tanks, French and Japanese tanks also suffers from same issue.
And? İts still missing its armor values and its not modelled as volumetric also increasing gun barrel will naturally expose turret ring more then normally do, guess you dont understand that.
Sure add M1A2 Export variant lower the hull armor and increase the other sections, dont forget to add domestic Abrams family and make them stronger as well.
2 Likes
1- Not a thing. Spalling isn’t vehicle specific. Material and thickness specific probably, but not vehicle specific.
2- Abrams fuel tanks don’t generate spalling.
3- This was only acknowledged 2 months ago. Community Bug Reporting System
4- Probably but also not provable as of current, and at least they meet the Swedish trials limits.
5- Fire control system says no. However when stab is off, probably should.
1 Like
İts does from time to time and when it does it increase spalling.
İts not communities mistake that Gaijin is incompetent to make Abrams turret ring accurate, or they didnt on purpose.
Like how Leo2A7 meet the Swedish trial limits? İts a outdated source that has been used by Gaijin in order to avoid changes, they already Gaslighted community so im not gonna talk about this mess again.
İf you’re talking about gun depression for rear shot then you might be right, however Gaijin could and can model it compatible with stab.
1 Like
No, the fuel tanks themselves don’t create spalling. The armor behind the fuel tanks does cause it’s armor.
2A7V does have issues despite being the best MBT in the game, this is known to us.
However, they’re a company that has to abide by secrecy laws same as all other game devs.
I reported the gun depression issue a while back and got the FCS explanation. Looked into it and yeah the FCS limits depression “over the engine deck”.
3 Likes
2A7V is not the best mbt in game.
Current best mbt in the game is Strv122 cause its armor is better then 2A7V while having better mobility, offering similiar firepower and having same amount protection from Spall liners, the only thing 2A7V is better at is the gunner thermal resolution.
Fair enough, so Abrams can get more depression in order to sacrifice FCS for a while.
İts even worse in that case considering fuel tanks suppose to stop that shell in the first place and if they cant armored bulkheads shouldnt increase the spalling level that much.
Nobody says they should look for classified documents and use them however many sources states and indicates in game 2A7V protection doesnt even come close to real one, same goes for mobility.
1 Like
and having a much better round.
What sources? People keep saying this and yet I haven’t seen anything to suggest that 2A7s armour would be any different than the German armour package offered in the Swede trials, which is what the devs used to model it. I’m sure it’s possible but if there’s any declassified info on the subject, it isn’t being posted by the people making this claim.
It is modelled as volumetric though, go check the turret underside in the protection viewer, it has variable thickness armour. The Abrams isn’t a priority candidate for volumetric armour as it is made up of mostly flat plates, and volumetric is only necessary for variable thickness castings with complex geometry. The only place on the Abrams that would require that is the turret underside, which is already volumetric.
It’s also not missing it’s armour values, as it conforms to all public info that we know of. Raising the gun barrel exposes a weakspot irl as well as you can see here:
4 Likes
The “offered” armour package was never ‘used’ per se, as it included in part;
- older add-on solution (see that the newer ones are shaped differently & have more bolts, thus indicating that there’s need for more of them to hold the thing in place?)
- older internal armour; B-technology was already succeeded by C-technology in 1987, and the Strv 122 which are modelled after the Leopard 2 TVM, have more or less proper armour values
Leopard 2A7V on the other hand is modelled after the oldest & never intended to be used armour combination of the Leopard 2 IVT, a vehicle that was nothing more but a stepping stone to the TVM.
Right now, the 2A7V isn’t even on par with a prototype that Germany built circa 1992 (TVM), it is in fact inferior in some aspects to the older (circa 1991) IVT as well…
Case in point:
This is just the hull, here’s the turret:
This isn’t even an issue of us having to prove that A7V has further upgraded its armour, it doesn’t even have the least amount of armour it should have based on available Swedish Trials.
7 Likes
.
Guess you’re not good at when it comes to reading and understanding.
Also DM53 has 37MM more penetration at 60 degree compare to M/95 shell, if you need that extra penetration then you must have serious skill issues.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
Tell you have no idea what you’re talking about without telling me you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Both of your claims are just empty and contains misinformation, Abrams turret ring doesnt modelled as volumetric and also lacks armor values.
1 Like
You used the Swedish results for all of these. The German results were lower, and match the in game values
The “German results” are the Leopard 2 IVT, an armour configuration that was discarded even before the trials & never implemented by any nation because it was deemed inferior (rightfully so, there’s a reason why TVM exists). In fact this armour config cannot even be considered here because Germany starting with the 2A5 began to use C-technology, i.e a newer internal composite than what the “German solution” i.e IVT was using, it’s a complete & utter mismatch.
You’d know that if you weren’t just cherry-picking your info:
Spoiler
Do you seriously think the Leopard 2A7V with the newest iteration of the armours that Leopard 2 TVM (“Swedish solution”) had, is only a match for a variant with base armour from 1977?
The in-game values don’t match either, the IVT achieved arc protection of roughly ~740mm on the turret according to this, but in the game, the 2A7V at best provides you with ~650mm, way below, and significantly less than the TVM.
You’re ridiculous. It’s like saying T-90M should only have armour equal to the T-72B.
5 Likes
ah yes, the swedish tests from 1977 definitly wasnt upgraded since then and we are using the same leopards since 50 years, do you even listen to yourself?
1 Like
Alright so for the t80bvm it’s alright if I just use regular armor values from the T80B, right? Since it’s entirely the same tank, with no improvement whatsoever, it’d be completely fine, RIGHT? It’s been 30 years since those tests and you believe there’s been zero improvement to the leopard’s armor?
Please get your head out from whatever hole you stuck it in and THINK
1 Like
Then how come this image doesn’t match the results for the German solution/IVT? This diagram is more likely referencing the unmodified 2A4
The trial diagram gives a 70% coverage vs a 700mm KE projectile, I don’t think we have a 700mm KE round in game to confirm that but I agree it doesn’t seem to be getting that coverage, though it’s close. It seems the turret needs a buff.
But yeah, the trials for the German solution do actually match up to the in game 2A7. I guess if the 2A7 is based on a further improved hull then that’s wrong, but I see where the numbers came from.
1 Like
The umodified 2A4 is on the left… you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
The trial diagram gives a 70% coverage vs a 700mm KE projectile
No, it states than the 70% of the turret surface when looking at it from the left side at a ~20 degree angle will provide ~700mm KE, but that’s not the case in WT, but if you pay attention, you will see that about ~68% of the surface will protect against 800mm as well, and if you look at the graphs comparing “German” & “Swedish” solutions, the TVMs turret from the left side was able to provide 720mm(!) of KE protection at an angle of 30 degrees, meaning significantly higher than what the 2A7V can do in the game.
I don’t think we have a 700mm KE round in game to confirm that but I agree it doesn’t seem to be getting that coverage, though it’s close. It seems the turret needs a buff.
This isn’t a problem, as with sufficient tools we can properly estimate the protection, here’s both Strv 122 & 2A7V side by side at a 20 degree angle:
Notice how 2A7V is nowhere near even IVT’s protection coverage? Yeah. It’s currently less armoured than the armour solution that Germany abandoned in favour of what we know as “Swedish solution” i.e the Leopard 2 TVM max.
But yeah, the trials for the German solution do actually match up to the in game 2A7.
They don’t, the turret’s nowhere near the level of the IVT, and the hull at high angles i.e at the skirts doesn’t provide enough protection.
For starters;
- there is no data for the upper plate
- you should be looking at the “angle of attack”, here’s the protection of the skirts at the proper angle
The 2A7V should be at least based on the TVM/swedish solution, since that’s the closest to reality, but for the argument’s sake, it should be at least ~12% better than it for the hull due to the new armour package that was installed, because news flash - C pakete is outdated, they used new & better inserts.
6 Likes
massive skill issue