After seeing this mod’s response, claiming that “all the weight went into the turret”, I’m afraid that pretty much sums up what the official news post will be claiming as well.
“We do not believe any of the extra weight went into the hull. All of those extra tons, instead, went into what we modelled as the heaviest 90mm thick plates in existence.”
Right when I start grinding it too. You are welcome guys /j
They alreayd have a polic from 2021 stating they’d do exactly what we are askong them to do. Make a reasonable deduction with likited data.
It was the will of the fxoes :D
Millions must inhale hopium
They nerfed PL-12s when I started researching the J-10A, the fxoes did not want that…
I have an estimation of about 83 inches for the hull width at the front. This is taken using the known skirt to skirt width of 144in. Each set of tracks is 25 inches wide, so we subtract 50. An additional 5 inches are subtracted per side for the gap between tracks and hull, and the skirts themselves. Removing the inch thick hull plate we get roughly 83. Assuming we use the 101mm plate as a figure, we get a height of ~4 inches, which won’t work. Moving the thickness to 4cm results in a 10 in height, which is still short.
If I ballpark the height to be 120cm, we get a thickness of 0.85cm, or .33 in. Assuming it’s closer to 1000mm, we get 1.03cm, or 0.4055in. Are these calculations wrong? 100%, but I am working on what I can observe.
just as a reminder, and to give an idea of what to expect in gaijin next response about abrams hull armor
Would this video be helpful? I imagine that most of you have already seen it but it shows parts of the hull floor as well as the drivers hole.
it has already been used to prove the hull armour thickness is wrong on the wt sepv3
with the weld location? It could also help to rule out things like spall liners taking up weight or underbelly armor being mounted as both of those would clearly be visible, I remember those being talked about as possibilities for added weight.
50mm take it, or leave it - Big G
Can you report them?
Literally nowhere else for the armor to go, and its already been specified its seperate from IED and mine protection
Do the improved hull armor sepv2s in the training schools mean nothing to them?? Yeah i bet they wouldnt add improved protection that has been tested multiple times to their latest and greatest improved tank to counter emerging threats surely even though literally every giant glowing red arrow is pointing torward the contrary. Not a russian vehicle = cannot be buffed
Fun fact, you can report the tech moderators comments and decision. Might be worth doing.
That would only give them more fuel to claim that their dismissals are legitimate, unfortunately :/
Yes, please. You risk getting banned from the bug reporting site!
And anti-Abrams people would be like: “see? This is totally why we don’t take their reports seriously!”, etc.
And remember that there isn’t even a “Bug Reporting Manager #1”; that’s just the label that the first one to comment gets, with the second one being “Bug Reporting Manager #2”, etc.
They aren’t user-assigned labels.
Alright alright… I closed it. Dunno how to delete but quite frankly I don’t use the bug reporting site ever and this was hilarious.
Also, if the premise is that GOOD information can be dismissed because some folks do finger pointing over drama then there is a bigger issue.
Also didn’t know that last bit since I never used it besides marking if I had an issue as well.