I’m pretty sure the composite skirts can be “destroyed” and they no longer provide protection. I know they have modeled damage for it but I’m not 100% sure on the loss of protection.
If someone could run the BMPT in a test drive and see if that’s the case it would be appreciated
Already did here, click the spoiler below this text :)
Were the engagements I sent not cqc? They were at like 200m. The comp gives you enough time to react, vs something like Leo which has no protection at all besides the 3 plates near the driver compartment.
Even at 500m it doesnt take more than 2 seconds to go through the composite plates. Also only one side has enough composite to cover half the tank. That’s enough reaction time if we’re talking about CS2.
yes but that’s not my point. I don’t think players would aim at that single spot. They would spread their shots. If you aim near the turret ring area, a shell is likely to penetrate causing significant damage. I haven’t noticed the side skirts coming in clutch in game because it takes 2-3 seconds to cripple them and in some cases probably a second.
Though this isn’t a one to one comparison, it’s why I find the “what about the Abram’s UPF” distasteful. Yes in certain situations it’s UPF can bounce shots, but why are we acting that aiming above or below doesn’t cripple the entire tank?
In this case the sideskirts do offer valuable protection but it’ll only be valuable if auto-cannons weren’t auto-cannons
As for the leo’s, yes your right. But would you sacrifice those plates for significant frontal protection from those autocannons?
1 Like
If they spread their shots it would take more time to penetrate, as each comp block has a set amount of hits it can tank before it flies off and allows the APDS to penetrate.
so are you just gonna quote that part and pretend like the rest of what he said doesn’t exist?
Honestly cannot be asked to have the classic Abrams convo for the billionth time. You don’t change people’s minds on the forums, its pointless bickering.
I will say this, I enjoy playing the Abrams far more than Leos. The extra ammo and reload go a long way.
Assuming you can turn your turret at 38 deg/s, that’s already 78 deg/s in 2s, excluding hull traverse. If we give a reaction time of 0.2s, with hull traverse, it is rather plenty.
I get it, brother. However, what i don’t get is why would you come into a thread talking about the issues with the abrams and say it’s fine and there’s nothing wrong with it if you’re so tired of arguing about it. I understand, you have 100:1 k/d ratio and get 40 nukes per match in it. How does that change the 50mm turret ring and horizontal drive issues?
Assuming you can turn your turret at 38 deg/s, that’s already 78 deg/s in 2s, excluding hull traverse. If we give a reaction time of 0.2s, with hull traverse, it is rather plenty.
Not sure if you intended it but this was funny af
2 Likes
Says who? There is valid information pointing out to M829A3 being made with Relikt type ERA in mind.
Can’t speak for the other tanks mentioned but the Merkava Mk.4, especially the M with its APS is superior to the Abrams. I don’t know why some people sleep on the Merkava like that(maybe because it was arguably mid at its release?) but its been very strong for a while now.
Are these the same people that jumped on the bmpt/72 and were crushing people? Your “usa players are unskilled” is the weakest excuse ever.
2 even skilled groups leo vs abrams: abrams loses every time.
Its based mostly on the player IMO
1 Like
High skill Leo vs High skill Abrams the Abrams wins.
1 Like
Abrams is by far easiest mbt to snapshoot…period. I play all of em.