Unique problem with Abrams is: They’re played by USAmains.
4 Likes
Oh, I see you’re a very smart and perceptive individual. Now tell me, did any other major power fight against drones on the massive scale like this? Don’t worry, I’ll answer for you: no, they didn’t. You understand that the only reason why Russia is doing so poorly is the drones. Both sides are completely incapable of doing any kind of attack without drones massively hindering the results. So you comparing what’s going on right now to anything in the past is extremely stupid. And please use your brain and not some stupid Nafo talking points.
And second of all, we are talking about a game, not real life. What are you on about?
i love those topics
people devolve into feces flinging monkeys after 100 posts or so
4 Likes
And I don’t know about that one; at least in my eyes, it looks like the autoloader is a smaller target than, I don’t know, the entire right side of the tank.
edit:And just before anybody says, “Oh, what about the ammunition in the back?” most of the crews, if not all of them, load only the autoloader; everything else is being used for miscellaneous storage.
And yes if you are interested I do have a proof
yea you’re right
Lmao, as if. It’s a constellation of problems that put together resulted in their poor performance. Their inability to establish air supremacy after 4 years, massive corruption, lack of qualified NCO corps, massed artillery doctrine failing against GPS counterfire, BTG organization lacking infantry for maneuver early on, etc. But now we’re wandering into full off-topic.
Originally answering the second post in the topic who brought up Western tanks in Ukraine and called them propaganda machines. Also, talking about real life is not against the rules, talking about politics is. So discussing the performance of X tank or X army in X conflict is not politics. Especially when Gaijin themselves say they’re trying to replicate the real tanks as close as possible.
Talking about the reason behind the conflict or if it’s justified or not would be politics, but that’s not what we’re doing, are we?
I guess the word ‘top-down’ flew over your head? A top-down missile or drone striking a tank center of mass will go straight into the center of mass autoloader. The Leopard far forward ammo rack + partly covered by composite reduces that probability.
1 Like
Ok, I misred. I didn’t see the top-down; my bad. But even so, most of the top-down ammunition doesn’t really hit top-down. Occasionally they do, but most of the time they hit at very sharp angles.And get eaten up by ERA unfortunately currently I cannot find a picture
But either way, that’s beside the point; you are right, and I am wrong.
2 Likes
Thank you for staying civil and pragmatic even though this is a hot subject. This is refreshing to see.
2 Likes
Tbf you don’t need to rework entire composite package to extend hull for about 20? 30? centimeters to move driver optics fully to the hull roof.
Then you could assume Russians with T-90M managed to come up with something better than high rubber - steel - air sandwich for “composite” insert dating back all the way to T-72B in game, but as Gaijin shoots down any bug reports about underperforming NATO armor packages, so they shoot down anything about T-90M hull armor.
i did not expect you two to be so civil
1 Like
Why because I’m a Russian main?
Abrams also has armor.
Is this armor currently in the room? Could you point me to it?
Keep ignoring the reality, it won’t make you any good though.
And could you elaborate on this “reality”?
Turret cheeks are well armored against anything.
UFP is auto bounce that won’t do any damage in most cases.
Well, isn’t this the case for majority of MBTs?
1 Like
Extending a hull entirely to remove a weakspot isn’t as easy as you assume. That costs something called money. That disrupts production lines. Those are two things the Russian state really REALLY can’t afford rn to do. I don’t blame them.
Also you’re literally better off just doing what they did on Obj-187 for the amount of money, and down time you’d cause by extending a T-72 Hull. Never mind the rebalancing of the suspension you’d end up having to do. It’s easier to extend the armor pocket for the Abrams (as it doesn’t have that cut out) and yet they never did it. So again, just because you can doesn’t mean you will, or should at that moment do it.
We just move away from this long debunked way of thinking about these things. Overall the design of the Object 187 hull not only got rid of the drivers port weakspot, but it was simple just superior geometrically when it came to stoping incoming KE rounds where the tak is most likely to be hit. It’s just better than extending the hull. The costs and down time just isn’t worth the return to do that.
You might well have a half new tank for that.
It’s missing 200mm ~ of armor in the ring, that’s fact. The bug report has been accepted eons ago. It’s the easiest to hit turret ring but also the weakest to autocannons when that isn’t close to accurate. End of story really.
Let’s not even go into how that guy’s barrel should’ve shook harder than a club during an earth quake…
1 Like
The stats still dont add up. They have 12.000 Matches…