They both fire, and they both die cause each fragged the other’s crew/ammo.
BVM dies even easier cause the turret is lolpenned by even DM33.
You bring stock ammo on 2A7V and BVM, BVM loses every time.
Protection map is broken again too.
With what engine? Gunner and commander got knocked out, with the engine if they failed to hit 3 of the for crew members. XD
I see we’re doing the “getting lost in weeds again” rather than agreeing Abrams needs fixes.
Surprise? No.
The difference is more pronounced in CQC not less
You aren’t always driving in straight lines through streets and everything uses brake steering, constant deceleration/acceleration; the difference will become more and more noticeable.
Why would they be inferior when they just bought Germanys MBTs and ammo from Israel. (if DM53 and M829A2(?) had anti ERA tips they’d have an edge but oh well)
M829A2 is literally 25 years out of date facing tanks designed to defeat it.
M829A3 which is designed to defeat everything up to Kontakt-5 and Relikt is still not in game.
(But here’s M908, which is a bunker buster where no bunkers exist.)
I’m talking about technologie, Sweden bought export Leos from Germany, but somehow they get the best Leopard.
I heard A3 cannot defeat Relikt, but it can defeat Kontakt-5.
You heard because Russian sources claim Relikt will stop A3. They’re getting dunked on with A2s and DM53s in Ukraine wearing Kontakt-5, as well as their own 3BM42s.
Because germany is not selling “monkey” models. Also Sweden did upgrade there leo2´s further with own technology and ideas. So yes there leo´s are better at the moment then other leo´s. also heavier then other leo´s.
Better armor, poorer acceleration and top speed. Not a problem for a Swede expecting a defensive action across narrow fields of fire.
Better for WT, but 2A7 and 2A7HU will do a hurting.
idk
2A6EX would have been too cracked to add at the same time I guess
Ahem.
KF51 ENTERS THE CHAT.
I’m not sure that Ukraine has a sufficient number of tanks firing these shells for us to say that something gets through or not. Plus, in reality, tanks do not fight other tanks, this is a huge rarity. It is often infantry and artillery that fight tanks. In this case, the use of both K1, K5, and Relic is justified and more effective than heavy NERA armor
Plus, until the very end of the conflict + a lot of years after, I would not trust either side when they claim some kind of effectiveness or data
Tanks engaging in combat in Ukraine are not a common occurrence, however, there are numerous videos showing T-72/T-80/T-90 tanks being easily destroyed due to ammunition detonation, a scenario not accurately depicted in War Thunder. In reality, any penetration of a Russian T-series tank should result in ammunition detonation.
Enough rounds have been slung for real world experience.
M829A2 is still 25 years outdated in game against the most modern tanks short of T72B3 (2022) and T80BVM (2023).
M829A3 being implemented would change dynamics and shatter ERA much more readily, and still perforate and penetrate beyond.
Fix Abrams turret ring.
Add M829A3.
Increase front hull armor (we went through 7 transmission and suspension updates, and still kept the same mobility as original M1A1).
If I was being really mean, I can say definitively that M829A3 could be put into basic M1A1 AIMS and M1A1 at 11.0.
Short of 4,000 barrels that were marked not safe to fire the updated round, they could still be fired from those chassis, to include M1A1 SA.
No
It’s the other way around. The explosion happens as a consequence. There are many videos on the Internet where tanks get hit in the side and just drive away or the crew leaves them. After that, either because of the fire inside, or because of the fact that the vehicle after the drone and artillery can make an explosion, but it is rare. The automatic loader is protected enough to withstand damage after penetration, plus shells, particularly gunpowder, do not explode as in the game, they rather burn out. And if there will be open hatches, even the explosion will not happen - will burn the entire tank layout. The same applies to Abrams and Leopards. In general, all the equipment in the world.
I was at an exhibition in Moscow and looked at the destroyed equipment up close. The Abrams was successfully burned, the Leopard was apparently abandoned, after which it was simply finished. They all burned in the end. Without an explosion.
P.s we don’t take into account the mine explosion, it’s pretty rare there when a tank can withstand such a thing. It’s more likely to be scrapped.Plus I will add that almost all videos where we see the explosion of the ammunition set of T-72(80) - it is a consequence of the explosion of shells that are transported outside the carousel of the automatic loader, and in regiments and other places. Still, during combat operations tankers try to take as many shells with them as possible
And 3BM60 is over 30 years out of date.
Your point?
Sure, when T-14 and Vacuum are added, along with equivalents to all other tech trees, such as SHARD MK2.
Turret ring we obviously agree on.
Well, Britain has the most advanced tank right now. It doesn’t even exist, it’s just a technical demonstrator. And the factory where it’s going to be built hasn’t even been completed. So that’s not much of an argument.
All appeals to time in this game are not arguments at all. They don’t mean anything
Abrams already has the second best shell in the game. Why do they need an even stronger one?
I’m not going to comment on that, as I find it easier to understand airplanes than tanks. Especially considering that my country uses one system of armor evaluation, while the US uses a different one (and I’m not talking about the god-awful imperial number system!). So since I can’t figure out what the level of defense will be (and what from the game it can be compared to) - I’ll refrain from commenting.
Except that I will continue to doubt the existence of such uranium armor
when he doesnt even realise that DM53 also has an anti-ERA tip but doesnt want something added because, ItS ToO OP
So you doubt that the SEP packages astronomical increase in weight the upgraded torsion bars on the SEPV2s. The different transmission packages/Engine upgrades desinged to slightly increase horsepower decrease overall weight and increase range(doesnt matter in-game) just doesnt exist? Not to mention the 4 different composite packages that have been added to the Abrams since its creation, and recently the 2 DU insert packages. But yeah the M1A1 HC-M1A2 SEPV2 should just have the exact same values in armor and engine values instead of at least bumping them up slightly to match said different armor package. Not asking for 500mm added armor just 100mm or so to indicate yeah they are different
Am I even talking about the engine? Or are you just talking to yourself?
Yes I doubt about DU armor not about composite
Bet.
Object 292 is just sitting there at 10.3.
USSR already have a lolpen round for what, 5 months?
M1A1 dropped in 2019 and they still haven’t addressed the turret ring shenanigans or the 829A3, nor the front hull armor, nor the front turret armor improvements, aside from the excuse that weight increases were due only to equipment additions (false reasoning, since we all know composites got lighter but also more reliable against multiple strikes to the same area).
It took them 5 years to realize the V-packs weren’t fuel tanks.
Also, they made it so a hit to the hydraulics locks the turret ring.
Hint, it doesn’t, we can still turn manually. But now they got something else to hit centermass and lock up our turrets in combat when the hydraulics are automatically switched to manual overrides and the turret ring can (or rather, it SHOULD) still turn.