It’s supposed to be like the Leopard’s turret ring, SPAAs and light vehicles wouldn’t be able to disable the turret ring that easy, 200mm of protection is more than enough.
3 Likes
yeah but in game all m1a2s and m1a1HC have armor based on the swedish trials of m1a2 which had non-DU inserts that were said to be worse than the DU armor of the time
I don’t understand why people seem to believe that we expect the correct turret ring to make it immune to main gun APFSDS…
Just making it resistant to autocanons would be a blessing already. Being killed by PUMA and BMP-2M autocanons and alikes frontally because of that artificial weakspot just isn’t cool.
1 Like
7 Likes
1 Like
Hahahah I still remember when I made that.
The Abrams and anyone who supports any fixes for them or has any legitimate concerns are generally so despised and looked down on and I hate it so much…
That being said, there’s lots of special forces who definitely don’t help our cases by stating some outlandish claims (like that the Abrams is the worst MBT in the game, or that even M1A1 should have 3BM60-proof hull armor, I’ve seen that too many times over here), but still.
4 Likes
arent the estimates like 200-300mm?
if so that wont stop full caliber but will stop autocannons but more importantly it should reduce the spalling
Ohhh im abraming it, im abraming it sooo good
FOR MERICA🦅🔥🇺🇸🔫
iirc its around ~250mm something
You are not listening!
This isn’t about me!
It’s about the thousands of tanks [GAIJIN] nerfed, and the countless other MBTs [GAIJIN] destroyed.
Why is [GAIJIN] above historical accuracy? Why does [GAIJIN] never fix their inaccuracies?
Where is [GAIJIN] when people are trying to fix their tanks with bug reports!?
What do I want…? I wa… I want corrections! I want fixes! I. WANT. [GAIJIN].
4 Likes
The USMC did not use Blazer, it is a domestic ERA (M1/M2). Super Blazer was produced after Desert Storm anyways, so it couldn’t have been equipped on USMC M60s. And yes, it should have M833 timeline wise, but that is the point I am making. Balance takes priority over introduction date, which is why we don’t have 120C-5 vs R-77 or M60A1 RISE P vs T-80U.
WHERE IS SEKRET DOCUMENT, WHERE IS IT?
SEKRET DOCUMENT ILL obtain YOU
YOU CLASSIFIED PAPERS ILL obtain YOU
1 Like
its crazy how people dont notice that the “M1A2 SEPv2” in game has export armor from the 90’s with values from the Swedish tank trials, which I remember seeing statements that the export armor was worse than the DU armor it replaced.
so what gaijin claims is a SEPv2 is actually an export m1a2 from the 90s with TUSK v2
2 Likes
tbh they should just buff the abrams hull regardless
make it like +50mm ke for HC and A1, 60-80mm for A2(from M1-A2 has the same hull layout except different composite and stuff and ofc except AIM)
80-120mm for AIM and 90-140mm for SEP and SEP V2
make it resist 3bm46 at a distance atleast
and change hydraulic location as well as turret ring buff to 200-250mm range(which it should be close), ufp thickness buff(38.1mm+25.4mm plate)and roof armor thickness buff maybe
and the new turret basket
all of that seems reasonable, would definitely want to see source on the UFP change though
Can you get me these docs?
here is an old forum post on this Fwd: Dec/11/2019 M1A2 Abrams Turret Armor - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
I do not belive m1a2 has had any armor improvements since and in game SEPv2 armor is identical
2 Likes
thats the problem
the number i provide are spectaculative number to propose for buff
the irl hull armor would likely be more due to technologies improvement
but they are all classified so cant really say much
Because some data being classified aside, Gaijin just likes artificially gimping NATO so the IvanBoos can have their fun and not constantly whine on the forums about how outclassed their hardware is.
Cute flag. Doesn’t prove me wrong, btw.