3BM42 will struggle much more against angled turrets and as a round with much less pen it’ll inherently make less spall.
Hard disagree, Merkava IV has better survivability and is a better tank overall.
Any hullshot leaves you defenceless in the Abrams since they added the turret basket. The survivability was good before, it’s in the gutter now.
1 Like
The Mk.4 has a similar one shot kill spot in the hull as the Abrams turret ring.
So it depends if you value ammo safety, better turret protection and gun depression or inconsistent hull survivability and turret basket (forgot this one) more.
Merkava would also receive turret basket and modules sometime in the future
Not really, the Mk.4 has better turret protection for hulldown while the abrams has a better turret protection out of hulldown. Upper half of the Merk turret(mantlet included) is fantastic, making it a hulldown fortress; lower half is bad. Abrams is your usual mantlet weakspot.
Regarding the hull, not really either. Many shots that would fully cripple the Abrams in the hull(turret basket+engine) only snatch the engine +1-2 crew member in the Merkava, allowing you to shoot back and get the kill.
The ammo in the hull of the Merkava is so far back+in armored container that they’re not super easy to reach when fired upon from the front.
Just aim slightly around/above this travel lock thingy and the majority of the time it will just yoink the 3 turret crew and kill the Merkava. It’s my go to one shot kill spot for it.
And since it’s close to center mass it doesn’t take a lot of time to aim for it.
1 Like
Yup, this spot is good. All I’m saying is that the Merkava has overall better survivability than the Abrams, not that it has S-tier survivability. It’s legitimately harder to neutralize it than to neutralize the Abrams because the spots to disable or kill it are smaller.
Not saying the Abrams is bad either overall, just that in today’s WT, anything entering the hull compartment is pretty much a guaranteed broken turret drive if you’re lucky, and a toast engine on top of it if you’re not.
That is if you don’t alright instantly die because the shell went through the fuel tank bulkhead and showered the inside with spall. The Abrams is many thing in War Thunder but it isn’t survivable anymore, that’s for sure.
4 Likes
@_Renzo Putting it in a second post, but yeah, good example of what I’m saying.
This poor hit in the Abrams kills you instantly even with ace vitality. The fuel tank spall kills driver, gunner, commander. If one survive by chance, turret drive is toast asf+driver gone so you’re essentially dead. Necron is kind of a clown for saying the Abrooms has the best survivability of the non-spall liner tanks when this is the reality of the vehicle.
Meanwhile, this shot in the Merkava only snags the gunner. Driver is safe, engine is safe, turret drive is yellow. Shots more to the left with a bit of angle toward the turret only remove the driver+engine. And so on.
4 Likes
I honestly feel like both are equally easy to kill with APFSDS however in terms heat (and other similar things) and autocannon Merkava does feel more harder to kill than Abram
That’s not only true for Abrams. With turret basket addition to leopards, that thing also happens with leopard, at least for the ones that don’t have spall liner in the hull. With addition of turret basket to more tanks, they all will face same thing as leopard and Abram (unless they have autoloader and turret basket like the Russian tanks)
So, what you are saying is that you won’t be happy until you have god mode? Anything less than that and you will consider the Abrams bad?
problem is the devs seem to have no intention of doing this. and to be fair the basket on the abrams is larger and has less empty space so it catches more spall and is disabled a lot easier. your still gonna lose it a bunch in the leo as well but it doesn’t feel as often
2 Likes
DU in the hulls of M1’s isn’t a thing unless you’re talking 5 select vehicles which were apparently training vehicles.
They also concern the M1A1HA variant, which we do not even have in-game.
Then there’s the issue of the volume of the LFP not being increased, you’re extremely unlikely to see an armour increase to the level where top-tier APFSDS would not be able to penetrate it.
There is barely any spall. I watch others play and they get a whole explosion of spall with other nations. L27A1 just gets a small handful, if that. Its like throwing a box of fun snaps into the enemy tank. Especially on the russians.
1 Like
@Morvran
That’s because the only thing that matters for APFSDS of that type in WT is how much penetration you have left after penetrating.
A 105mm with 700mm of pen will create more spall than a 140mm with 300mm of pen if they both strike a 250mm armor plate. In fact, caliber isn’t even taken into calculation for spall factor.
L27A1 being the weakest top tier APFSDS, you have by default less spall because of that and you can really feel it when you strike armor spots that have around 550mm of effective armor.
2 Likes
Which is why L27A1 rather frequently doesnt one shot and the report to buff L27A1, even just marginally, should not be left accepted for well over 2 years. Also why it can be argued that a Challenger 3(P4) even just with DM53 at 12.7 would be a significant addition to the tree.
2 Likes
2 years…
Gotta be close by now to 3 years for ready rack to be 20-28 rounds instead of 4
Why arent we like… shouting about it though? 3 years, message someone and ask no?
They tweaked a few shells last year and I tried bumping it and its on my dev forum post
Its 3 years though. They just do everything they can to keep us under russia or like barely competitive. Cant even have a AFV without an OP BMPT being put in.