also the m1 and the ipm1 have a weight difference of 1000kg, and the turret armour was basically increased by 25% (against KE)
5 Likes
It’s an easy kill and stat padder …why would they?
I mean there are a lot of top tier MBTs that fit such a description. Including the Abrams.
2 Likes
Which were … I ponder
Well then the Challenger must have impenetrable armor.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I mean yeah out of all the nato mbt’s the chally has the best armor while the abrams and leopard have better guns and mobility
best way ive seen for ranking nato mbt’s is chally has the best overall protection against most things abrams has the best survivability and mobility and the leopard has the best firepower
1 Like
lws proxy fuse with irst also the t-90/72 have a better survivable auto loader since the ammo lays flat instead of upright so the auto loader is more likely to just eat the spall than the t-80’s autoloader t-90 also has 2 more smokes and 1 degree more of gun depression ( not a whole lot but still better than nothing)
1 Like
Wait until they add the perfectly cooked modules to block all the spall - keeping the crew safe for 3-4 consecutive shots
Maybe that’s why they cook the T-series modules much longer than Nato modules
Not even enough
14 Likes
This genuinely made me giggle
Spoiler
13 Likes
recreate it, should be sepv3
Too much work
4 Likes
true
1 Like
when can we stop some gaming company from being nonsensical on realistic information
2 Likes
All the abrams needs is realistic dart physics in game. When a apfsds dart strikes a plate at 81-82 degrees it shatters and does no damage. The abrams ufp is 83-85. A apfsds round from 1960 should not pen the ufp, same as any top tier round. Gaijin has shell shatter physics but I guess not for darts.
3 Likes
The Missing"Shell Shatter" Mechanic for High Angles Real-world physics dictate that when a hyper-velocity dart strikes an armored plate at an angle past 80–82 degrees, the sideways forces cause the rod to instantly snap or disintegrate. It dumps its energy into the air as fragments Gaijin’s physics engine does not properly simulate structural stress and disintegration on the Abrams UFP. Instead of simulating a 2-foot-long metal dart bending and breaking, the game treats the round as a perfectly rigid, indestructible point of kinetic energy
2 Likes
The Abrams UFP is unrealistically immune. 3bm42 has been shown to go through the plate even at steeper angles when “shattered” the tail simply slides in. It’s only 38.1mm it’s nothing major. The one way to make a beefed up UFP immune to actually strong APFSDS is to have the plate at 83.5 degrees which it isn’t in game.
Gaijin wanted the tank to have some level of defense.
3 Likes
Not how the darts you tend to face at 11.0 to 13.0 work IRL. Not all darts are the same, not all darts are the same hardness let alone materials. Against old darts sure at a specific angle it can break up the dart if it’s hard enough (not guaranteed). 80-81 degrees is more than enough for 3bm42 t go through. 3bm60 has a field day. The critical ricochet angle for those rounds are steeper than 82 degrees… It should go through.
If the angle is too steep, some darts can just slides up the plate fully intact straight into the turret ring with enough energy to penetrate at least 330mm of steel. So to break up a dart you need the angle to be just barely steep enough with the plate being decently thick. 38.1mm isn’t enough for even decades old darts.
I love the Abrams but it’s unrealistically resilient on the UFP and that’s fine, I don’t personally want it to be weak asf. Even if that’s the case in simulators using real data.
3 Likes