220mm/71.12°
A well-known instruction manual
Repairing the model is a very troublesome thing,
from Challenger2 ~ Leo2 are waiting for the model refurbishment, it is a long, long line.
1 Like
Oh, the challengers have already gotten it, could you not tell lol? I dont blame you, it was given to us half done, and then we were told it was all intentional and thats the last we heard of it since… were not seeing any more changes buddy and i doubt anyone else will unless gaijin see a money making opportunity.
Yes it is. It clearly ties that spot with the BVM. And then the best tank in the game is the spall lined Leopard 2. I personally count the 2A7 and Strv122 as the same tank as their performance is very similar.
I don’t understand why you don’t want to accept this. You can ask any more experienced player, I also very clearly outlined the advantages of the Abrams. And I would personally easily take the M1A2 SEP over the BVM - but they’re overall equals.
It seems as if you’re dictating your opinion based on feelings surrounding “russian bias” rather than objective fact. The Abrams reloads substantially faster, has a full 10 degrees of gun depression, has 50mm more penetration, triple the reverse speed compared to a BVM, and over ten times compared to the T-90M, and is realistically more survivable considering the carousel ammunition changes - while it has a turret rack with a blowout panel (the best ammo configuration possible).
It also has comparable frontal turret armor, an auto-ricochet UFP, and the turret ring weakspot is majorly overblown and is no larger than what the Chinese tanks get. Its main weakness - the LFP, is almost guaranteed to not one-shot the tank, while on a tank with a carousel - it’s a death sentence.
I would kindly ask that you stop bringing feelings into an argument.
All you’ve said is:
An absolutely empty sentence with no backing.
Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve barely played any relevant Russian or Chinese vehicles outside of 30 games in the premium ZTZ-96A (P). Yet you simply claim that they’re “strong”.
hmmmm, if you can check my game history but cant see that ive never siad they were strong? i said the abrams wasnt the best. And i actually agreed with you earlier about them suffering, they are just not the worst as they can still hold their own.
Im not gonna bother responding as you seem pretty set in your ways and i dont think anyone else really cares what you say tbh…
No it isn’t, we do know clearly that Chinese MBTs do not have 5 degree depression anyway, but due to GAIJING’s massive breech it currently only have 5 degrees of depression and 15 elevation. The model for the turret is leaning at 5 degrees, which seem to suggest that Chinese MBTs in fact have no depression at all if that has an effect on depression. So in reality I think the 99A should have around 10-15 degree depression and 15-20 degree elevation.
4 Likes
It’s pointless, because most players who say no need to buff this, no need to buff that, they don’t even play them so they don’t care, they hope gaijin don’t ever buff the vehicles they don’t play or fight against else how do they continue to be the bully? lol
1 Like
2- It has -6 degrees over the front, -5 over the side, and -4 over the rear. Its turret ring is angled down 1 degree both IRL and in-game.
4- M829A2 is the best shell fired out of the 2nd best cannon.
b- The classified docs poster that got banned proved its penetration to be correct.
1 Like
It should not have -6 degrees over the front, it should have more. Because its turret ring is not angled down only 1 degree IRL nor in-game. It’s clearly more angled than the T-80 BVMs, for example - which is actually 1 degree. You can check this in the X-ray. The MBT-2000’s turret ring is in an even worse position, because it is clearly angled down even more, yet retains a measly gun depression.
As for M829A2 being the best shell fired out of the 2nd best cannon - I basically agree. I think the best cannon is on the Type 10 and A2 is effectively the best shell being fired out of a gun of L/44.
Again - the document states 680mm at 0 degrees, due to the length of the penetrator, it couldn’t possibly penetrate less than 600mm. Yet it is 577mm in-game which I believe might be the worst out of all top tier tanks. Couple that with the fixed extremely long 7.1 second reload…
2 Likes
What about 829a2 pen? I’ve heard that almost all NATO apfsds have nerfed pen but also heard that the in-game numbers are very close.
It’s 629mm. The 2nd best in the entire game. DM53 at the same length of L/44 is at 623mm. Only DM53 with the lengthened L/55 barrel is better, with ~20mm more pen at 652mm.
The best Russian shell, 3BM60, is at 580mm of pen. It’s even worse than A1.
I meant irl numbers but should’ve specificied. They should implemented the very high spall and pyrophoric properties of DU rounds, so that the Abrams has a way to counter spall liners since it has none of its own. Hopefully all Chinese tanks which had spall liners get them 🤞
Great, then they should implement the Abrams spalling far more when hit in its DU armor. If the properties of those rounds are so magical, wouldn’t spall produced by it getting hit be just as devastating inwards?
Although I’ve also heard a certain someone say that the Abrams DU also acts like an internal spall liner and reduces spall. Quite the magical material, that DU. It does everything.
4 Likes
Never heard about it catching spall outside of forums. However I have heard of DU being inherently incinidery (pyrophoric) I feel like the incinidery properties are either exclusive to DU rounds as they experience different stresses than DU armor on impact. Also from Wikipedia page on pyrophoricity (good enough source for researching a physical trait of a material) it also happens when small metal particles get loose like how a lighter striker works by turning ferrocerium into tiny particles which react with air to make sparks. Another reason for DU armor not causing the incinidery damage is that it’s sandwiched between plates designed to tank the extreme heat and pressure of a Heat fs round multiple times
I don’t think that matters in the case of an actual penetration…
1 Like
But the other composite plates would absorb the incendiary spall, and yeah they might make their own spall but it wouldn’t be incinediary. Personally, I think the different thicknesses and shapes of DU in armor vs as a penetrator makes it so DU armor doesn’t make incinediary spall otherwise US wouldn’t use it
They are not meta and are power crept by almost everything else that’s not Italian, but that SPEED make them a lot of fun for me.
Some players just want a tank that they can play with their neurons turned off, I’m not one of them.
2 Likes
No my man, it’s not the DU, it’s the pure AMERICAN PATRIOTISM infused with the material that makes it defy the laws of physics.
The spirit of George Washington himself comes from the heavens mounted on a t-rex dual wielding AR-15’s to bless every single atom of DU in the Abrams (present even in the sights), making it invulnerable to threats coming from a 360 degree arc…
It is particularly hilarious to me that US players do so bad in their tank while other players in clearly inferior MBT’s are doing much better, that they resort to History Channel levels of fiction to cope.
7 Likes
Look, DU isn’t majic super armor but it’s used for a good reason, has good properties for armor and AP ammo. Because of different effects on impact of a specially designed penetrator and a DU armor plate, and the US using it as armor for many years, DU armor most likely does not create any extra or incinidery spall vs composite. It is possible it has some spall catching ability but that is speculation until further information can be found regarding DU armor. However, it is a known property of DU rounds that they have an incendiary effect, and due to the way it fractures and melts on the sides it has a self sharpening effect on the projectile.
It is a super dense but brittle material, the “incendiary” effect is simply the shards being insanely hot due to the immense kinect effect of the round.
This goes against the previous statement of a [certain poster] before us, that claimed that damage caused on DU armor would leave just a “small hole”, which is utter nonsense considering the chemical properties or DU.
A material can’t be brittle and malleable at the same time, it can’t work according to the will of the user, hence, it’s a fictional claim.
5 Likes