I couldn’t tell (and still can’t tell) whether or not the top or bottom of the darker area is the start of the turret ring or just shadow stuff, so I went with the largest part I could easily tell.
As for the image above, the longer line is 88px tall (51.788mm, 2.038898 in) and the shorter line is 59px tall (34.692mm, 1.365827 in)
But the round will pen much, much less if shattered because the shattered pieces will both spread out the energy both in time and position.
How would that happen if the pieces don’t pen? Having RNG for a “the rounds hitting the turret ring shake it enough to cause some module damage” mechanic seems annoying, although how much the module would be affected is up to debate.
I doubt the rods would stay in pieces large enough to pen the turret ring.
If I remember correctly, the turret ring itself has something like 200mm of armor, but some say it’s only 50mm.
The hull is angled at 80-82 degrees (can’t remember exactly right now, so putting a range for good faith) and the underside of the turret appears to be angled around the same.
It’s likely not going to pen, though, at least going off of the APFSDS penetration formula Gaijin uses (where one of the most important values is the length of the penetrator, which if shattered into 6-9 pieces, will only pen ~104.83mm - ~69.8mm of armor.
Not particularly this, but it causing enough of an interior bulge on the metal to stop the roller bearing from rolling. I personally think things like this should have been added from the get-go by gaijin when they implemented a armor deformation code.
Which if the ring is 50mm’s, would, by their own calculations, penetrate, but that is an IF, a big one at that.
Is that an Open or Closed 82°? If it’s open, that’s way too small, if it’s closed, the LFP might be 82°. I measure my angles differently, since we are talking turret ring, I was going off the 180° of the turret ring, and saying it has a slope grade of 30-35°. If your talking the 90° of the plate (interior plate angle) then yeah, 82°’s is believable, I think 3BM42 bounces at 71-82°. It’s 89°, just looked it up.
I’m not going to throw a bone to the Abrams, because most Tank-Tank battles it was a part of was against obsolete, like the T-72M1 in Iraq, and 73 easting. Now looking at it in, “The eastern war,” has already been lost to a Russian tank…
All that fame and glory of “No lost vehicles” down the drain, don’t know if it had the DU pack though, I’d assume it doesn’t though, so may in defend its title, but in WT it doesn’t have its DU armor; so…
Many Iraqi tanks fielded at the time of the first gulf war were not considered obsolete at the time. The “lion of babylon” was thought at the time to be quite good. They were technologically outdated by their western counterparts. You must also remember the m1a1 fielded then is very close to the one Ukraine is using today. I’m glad they were’nt given more modern versions as Ukraine tactics would just waste the technological edge of the modern Abrams. If I remember the soldier interviewed about the destroyed abrams in moscow he said took 5 shots to take it down. He actually lauded its toughness. Not really seeing anyone talking about how tough modern Russian tanks are…
