A point that really draws attention regarding the turret ring and the cannon mask/breech is the fact that when hit in this area, the shrapnel in the Abrams simply creates a vortex and swallows everything, normally, if not killing on the first shot, causing absurdly critical damage, while if you do the same on a T-80BVM or especially a 90M, the shot simply stops at the breech, without major secondary damage. It’s as if the Abrams’ breech doesn’t have any thickness, while other tanks do, or something like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was something like that, since American players went through this same problem when Gaijin introduced the M60A1 and simply left it for years with a mask/breech being only 127mm even after numerous rapports, only correcting it after it stopped being a widely used vehicle
.thumb.png.afcd5e3f86affbae0f219e174eb27924.png)
.thumb.png.28bdb1b602f4337785f845c5c2d95a77.png)
Today
It wasnt designed with the T62 gun in mind, the U.S Army specifically wanted the tank to be generally tough against its own round from the front. Not to mention the way armor advances its safe to say that the amount of armor in the lower front plate is MUCH more than what any of us can guess.
Insert DM53 which also has an Anti-ERA tip, M338, or the type-10. They all basically have the same penatration just -+10mm difference or so.
''The Materiel Need (MN) which XM1 is required to meet differs from GSR 3572 in certain important respects. These are as follows:
a. The principal requirements of the US MN are:
(1) Protection of the crew compartment against the Soviet 115mm FSAPDS at 800-1200m
[…]
it does not meet the GSR in the following major respects:
a. Its frontal armour would be defeated at all battle ranges by the current Soviet 125mm FSAPDS.‘’
‘‘The terminal ballistic characteristcs of this round were taken to be those of the XM579E4 projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1524 m/s […]’’
(X)M1 was very much designed with the 115mm smoothbore gun in mind.
125mm APFSDS was expected to be able to penetrate the M1 Abrams frontally at combat distances.
The IPM1 increased the turret protection (and not the hull protection) to remedy this issue.
The XM1 is not the Abrams. It was a demonstrator/prototype program created for GM and Chrysler to essentially duke it out and see who would further the program to what would become the Abrams.
Those models are closer inline with the abrams yes, but still not proving your point. Their is still no basis on which model received the live fire testing in regards to the round you suggested or the one I did. Reason being, its classified. But as every person that is either in the military or in any weapons program you want your armor to at least beat the most common round first, and mitigate the highest round.
One is quite literally called "‘XM 1 Abrams’'.
Also:
‘‘The first of the M1s to come off the production line (so early that it was still officially an XM1)’’
That sentence doesn’t make sense entirely, so I hope I interpret it properly.
I just qouted multiple primary source documents which detail exactly what type of ammunition is used as a threat simulant, and the likelyhood of the XM-1 being able to defeat said threat types.
There’s also numerous other documents which provide us with clear live fire test data for BRL-1 and BRL-2 composites:
Quite a bit of information on this topic has been long declassified, actually.
This is no longer an excuse for ignorance.
So… 115mm APFSDS and 100mm APDS?
They still eventually received modified Arrays; Note the Introduce Armor modification, line item likely to to bring them to M1E1 standards(the IPM1 seems to meet the timeline).
again a us main crying… jk jk
Germany has worse cas/AA, worse SPAA(but is 70SP ik), worse mobility, worse reload, no 12mm(except 2A5PSO) all the Leopard 2’s(2A4, 2A5, 2A5PSO, 2A6, 2PL, 2A4M) has same weak Front Hull armor than the m1a2. 3BM42 can pen both m1a2-sep and 2A5-2A6(all Leopard 2’s has same internal hull armor) but since the abrams doesn’t have a stupid human centipede, 2nd stage ammo rack, and a better angled UFP shells ricochet way more often on the abrams UPF than Leopard which makes the m1a2-sep have better hull armor than 2A5-6
Only sweden (700-710mm where the extra mounted composite armor is ingame). Since for some or no reason 2A7(630mm ingame) doesn’t get the TVM or D package in hull(atleast 700mm or 800mm) which is weird for a ≈20year newer tank and it’s only on 1 tank unlike 3 in the swedish tt
Yes it’s much but it can easly pen ground vehicles unlike any other SPAA
Not even talking about air capabilities or full ground.
So at the end it’s balanced while being unbalanced.
Then WT should’ve added the SepV3 instead of the SepV2 in Search & Destroy. The 2A7 and T90M brought something to the table but the Sepv2 was just a copy paste. top tier rounds doesn’t mean much when majority of the shots are spent aiming for weakspots.
Armor plays a bigger role in top tier than the round being used. Of the big nations, only US has the weakest of them of all. No matter how much armor you put in the hull it doesn’t take away from the fact that the turret ring is the biggest weakspot which can be easily exploited by all vehicles. What makes it worse is with the introduction of modules, it can easily absorb a lot of shrapnel. So shots that can typically take out russian tanks in one hit will not take multiple hits.
There are only few instances where 600++ penetration matters. another is that raw penetration would stay the same for the A3,it’ll only be effective at going against kontact not relikt.
I agree that the 114L shouldn’t be added, it would be to overpowered but I disagree with your reasoning. If that’s the case the vehicles with the VIKHR missile should be 12.7 as that can completely ignore smoke. One way to make the Hellfire a lot better, is give it an accurate IOG and flight path. This way, it can act like a semi F&F agm but only for stationary vehicles.
Pantsirs do not have equivalents as that is the only spaa that can completely counter CAS and it’s ordnance with room to spare. It is the only spaa that can fire it’s missiles without getting a lock on warning. That what makes it powerful.
The SepV4 would be a more reasonable equivalent to the 2A8 and the T14.
SEP2 was not in the game previously, thus cannot be copy-paste.
CQC is popular because it removed armor from tanks, especially T-series and Strv 122s.
AGM-114s already have IOG.
And Pantsir cannot counter CAS as it doesn’t have the range.
M1E1 was a testbed designation, they were built to trial 120mm smoothbore guns and eventually armour improvements (no shortage of photos with E1s with ballast weights welded onto the turret), it was redesignated to M1A1 when finalised and M1IPs are just A1s with M68 105s.
edit: E1 was intended to be the new designation for 120 armed Abrams but they changed it to A1 when it hit production
at this point, I don’t know if you are reading what I’m saying. You are playing semantics as if it’s helping your argument. It’s not.
The SepV2 in all sense is the exact same as the SepV1. Same round, armor, and fcs. The only difference is ARAT (which is useless) and the crow. That’s it. Where as the 2A7 and T90M gets better armor.
CQC is not popular, especially for top tier. I have no clue where you got that information. it makes weak spots much easier to hit but at the same time much harder for weakly armored tanks because they cannot use the terrain to it’s advantage.
AGM114 does have IOG but a heavily nerfed one. You need to have lock 6-8 seconds before it impacting to get a direct hit. By having a better IOG, you can launch and go back in cover. Hence why I said “accurate”
Pantsir can counter CAS because all of the ordance that is being shot is either mavericks or gbus. All of which are slow and easy to intercept or counter.
The SEP 2 has an entirely different model, thus not copy-paste.
To argue it’s copy-paste is arguing semantics, which I am not.
CQC is popular, otherwise they wouldn’t be the most populace maps.
It’s cause long-range favors Leopards and T-series tanks and less so mobile tanks.
Cqc is only popular because it’s 90% of the maps.
Players don’t design or make the maps, and they have 0 input on what types of maps. Gaijin designs the maps, and that’s what they have chosen to add. They work fine at lower BRs, but they are lacking at higher BRs.
CQC isn’t anywhere close to 90% of the maps let alone 75%.
Of the 53 maps, 33 of them are CQC.
Of the 33 maps, 8 are unavailable to 8.0 and higher matches.
So that’s 62.3% of maps being CQC, and 48% of top-BR available maps being CQC.
Like I said, the only difference is the ARAT and the CROW, nothing else. Majority of the community understands it’s a copy paste because it does/has nothing useful that that the SepV1 can’t do. Literally the only reason why you can’t remove the ARAT on the SepV2 is because it’ll literally be a sepV1 (with a crow). I don’t know why you’re adamant on saying it’s a “different” tank even though it’s not and infact a much worse tank compared to the SepV1
That’s the reason why I said it’s copy paste because where the T90M and 2A7 was a considerable upgrade to it’s predecessor, the SepV2 was not.
By popular I mean well liked by the playerbase. It is absolutely not well liked by the top tier playerbase. Having said that, the reason why CQC maps are more common is because WT can’t make new maps for only top tier. That would cost them too much.
Longer range maps favor all tanks because it emphasizes more on positioning and tactics than a run & gun type shooter.
Pantsir missile can reach up to 20km and it got the best Radar in the game.