T-90M does not have the same armor as T-72B because Gaijin actually bothered to model the upgrades.
Relikt has more KE than K-5, and so does the new welded turret…
…unlike M1A2 SEPv2’s new generation Depleted Uranium armor, which has the same values as the previous older iteration, making it wrongfully have the same values ingame as the base M1A2.
Can you imagine if Relikt and K-5 had the same KE effectiveness as K-1? That’s what Gaijin has done to the late Abrams tanks.
No, AIM does not have a historical round. Each and every single source mentions KE-W A2, not a single one mentions KE-W.
T-90M has the same hull armor as T-72B, correction it’s 1983; both having a 60 5 3 18 3 5 60 10 50 armor sandwich.
T-90M’s turret is a guestimate just like M1A2. With the composite array of the T-72B and T-90M turrets being of similar composites in-game.
Somehow dodging the ERA to get a composite armor reading:
If AIM can fire KE-W A2, it can fire KE-W; if it can’t fire KE-W it can’t fire KE-W A2.
KE-W is a historical round, and claiming it’s not is claiming A2 is not.
SEPv2’s new gen DU armor is not the same as baseline A2’s in real life, but it has the same values ingame. I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove. It’s as if Relikt had the same KE as K-5.
T-90M’s turret is a guesstimate, while SEPv2 is NOT.
SEPv2 having the same armor as A2 would be the same as T-90M having the same armor as T-72B.
Yet T-90M has better armor than T-72B, but SEPv2 does not have better armor than baseline A2.
They can guesstimate T-90M’s armor, but suddenly there’s a problem guesstimating SEPv2’s, so they must give it the same values as a 13 year older tank.
KE-W never even set foot on Australia.
I don’t get it; M1A1 HC and M1A2 can have M829A2 at 11.7… but somehow M1A1 AIM getting a worse M829A2 at the same BR is a problem…?
There is zero indication of what the improvement over M1A2’s armor is.
No percentage, no hard number, no round comparisons, nothing.
With absolutely zero information, the assessment must be that keep armor the same until information is found.
The M1A1 AIM is not Australia, it’s not the Australian Armed Forces, and Australia is not General Dynamics.
Australia doesn’t dictate what Abrams can or can’t fire, General Dynamics does.
M1A1 HC and M1A2 should be 12.0, and your intent to destroy one of the last balanced 11.7s in the American tech tree… ending the 11.7 permanently in the future. Wild take.
There are values; +250% CE for SEP and SEPv2’s turret sides, for example. Yet here we are.
And regarding the rest (KE)? Well, that’s where GUESSTIMATIONS come in play. Those which are fine with most modern tanks ingame except for the Abrams, apparently. Suddenly, we need hard numbers, when no other tank does…
…what?
The ingame M1A1 AIM is the Australian variant, with Australian armor and Australian livery, under the Australian flag and with Australian voices. It is clear and obvious that it’s a depiction of the Australian tank- which, spoiler, uses KE-W A2. Not KE-W, not M829A2- KE-W A2.
I’ll take a historical 40mm KE difference over a marginal 0.3 BR difference that makes no actual difference because every single match is a 12.0 uptier anyway.
Idk bro , it is japan. It doesn’t matter unless that nation name started with U and end with an A or start with R and end with A. Minor nation are not counted
Well yeah but clearly not strong enough to please the mass. Especially US player themself. Out of all the top tier Premium ground right now US arguably have the best line up for any Br above rank 6. Also they are the only nation with a good amount of premium Aircraft top tier as well and they are all decent to good. That just premium side , not counting normal Tech Tree or event
I know there is no clear evidence that the M1 chassis had DU, but it’s the same as the supposed protection of the Relikt being twice that of the Kontakt-5. It could be, but it could also be a fantasy. Personally, I find it incredible that the Relikt offers twice as much protection as the Kontakt-5, especially regarding the KE.
Yes, the Romor is modeled as it is. The usual thing is that it should provide more protection against CE ammunition. It’s been reported and accepted. Now we just have to wait for the devs to get tired of leaving the report aside and implement it.
Interestingly, this happens with many Western armors. The Brenus armor in reality is something similar to Kontakt 5, but in the game it’s like Kontakt 1. Also, many added composite armors have the ability to stop 30mm APDS (around 80 to 90mm penetration), but they provide 30mm protection.
This is not counting the fact that the AV-8B Plus is a carrier of the AIM-120C, especially the C-5 and C-7 versions
And initially it had the AIM-120B and never had the AIM-120A. Yes, it should also have the AIM-9X (Block I) and (Block II)
And the one presented in the game is the first version of the Harriera from the 90s, with an old radar and a set of weapons.
I played the M1IP at 12.3 and the T-90M at 12.0, and I can say the T-90M is a worse tank. Its only benefit is armor, which is worthless when you consider it can’t hide its weaknesses like a Leopard can. (ie, Hull-Down Combat).
As Renzo said, the T-90M is only decent because the people fighting you have no idea what to do and hit the thickest part of the tank.
Introduction dates are subordinate to balance considerations, because at the end of the day War Thunder is still a video game. We don’t have AIM-120C-5 vs R-77-1 for the same reason that the M60A1 RISE P with ERA from 1988 is a lower BR than the T-64A from 1977.
