You aren’t worthless, just your opinion. I played US, Germany, and UK before the Italians were even a subtree in WT. Most of my stats are gone from my battlelog. I’m an American, and I’m tired of people disrespecting Russian combat gear because they get these propagandized notions that it all blows up instantly, and is total crap. It’s people like you and Doc who are unrelenting in parroting your delusions of “Russian Bias” instead of breathing and actually objectively evaluating the game and what’s going on.
To answer the main question posed by the thread. Why can’t NATO have a well armored MBT? Because the didn’t need a tank for peer-on-peer engagements. They needed direct fire support capable of taking some hits from Chemical threats in Urban environments. That’s why most of your applique is crap. Period. Nothing to hypothesize or prognosticate over.
The rational that do objective critiques & research are always “Russian mains”.
But the people who praise T-80BVM as a god superior to Abrams & Leopard 2A5, they’re not fanboys of Russian equipment, they’re the real critics. /s
To answer the main question posed by the thread. Why can’t NATO have a well armored MBT? Because the didn’t need a tank for peer-on-peer engagements. They needed direct fire support capable of taking some hits from Chemical threats in Urban environments. That’s why most of your applique is crap. Period.
That is… very misguided. All NATO MBTs were designed with intent to destroy peer threats from their conception. A direct fire support vehicle does not need electronics for 2km engagements or heavy armor and armament.
Urban applique is “crap” in game because its still highly classified and has ridiculously low CE modifiers as well as completely missing KE modifiers for the few that should (Chally 2). TUSK is designed to provide immunity to RPG-7 warheads without tandem penetrators, in game it barely stops a 106mm HEAT round. PSO and AZUR likely designed to similar protection standards.
“Why can’t NATO have armor” is a simple question with an equally simple answer. Answer being “we can’t prove NATO armor is better than the public tests claim without classified docs.”
It’s very likely NATO armor is better than presented in game. It’s also very likely Russian/Soviet tanks are benefitting from volumetric and in-game spall thresholds unintentionally.
The tanks at the core of their design were intended to engage in tank-on-tank combat with a peer. I was not trying to communicate that the tank itself was setup that way.
To be more specific, I was saying the reason why NATO can’t have a well armored MBT is because they changed combat doctrine for 20 years in LIC environments instead of focusing on remaining on top in the peer-to-peer game.
Yes.
If you have documentation that isn’t classified, you should share it. Keep in mind, like with all of these discussions, the true extent of the protection may be limited due to balance issues.
If it’s big enough to stop the round, it will detonate, it either stops the threat or it doesn’t. Not sure what you mean by “barely”.
Suspect. The upgraded hull armor is legit, but the skirts and rear turret protection don’t seem to be NERA.
Depending on the version, like I’ve said above, it’s potentially gimped from where it should be.
This is really what should be explored and understood. But I’m tired of people thinking the BRAT or TUSK should give them complete immunity to a class of weapons that they aren’t even designed to defeat.
I love the Magach 6B Gal Batash, I’m well versed in the BATASH program and the details of the tank. I really wish it had better protection, but we have to assume it’s been modelled properly. I’m not begging Gaijin to make it perform the way I FEEL it should.
You know what Abrams and Leopard 2 designed for? it to responds the Russian tank in mind at the begin with over the years hull armor of both tanks keep improving Abrams start to have DU insert on it hull Leopard 2 from C to D-tech and MEXAS-H for increases the thickness of the hull yep you already see that on Strv122 and add on armor like that can put on any Leopard 2 hull (yes even A5/A6 we have in the game can put on MEXAS-H and have protection on Strv122 level) it made by German company after all but Gaijin don’t let Leopard to have it for some reason it just like an ERA on Russian tanks but being gaijin double standard exist Russian can have ERA but Leopard cannot have MEXAS-H
Strv122 is the best example that NATO tanks can have good hull protection.
Lol. It’s sitting on top of the hull, but to claim it’s still ‘attached’ to it is just false.
In fact if you had bothered to scroll down a bit, there’s an even better photo showing its massive overhang (that is impossible if the turret was still stuck to the hull):
I’d say balance reasons, but I’m not sure that applies. I think they may be trying to keep the lines unique so that people have an incentive to play minor nations. So it’s more financial probably than balance related.
That’s rushing to a conclusion. Same standard can apply to Sweden then too.
Given that the 122 is basically an up-armored 2A5 at 11.7, where would you put an up-armored 2A6, and what would you call it? It would have to start at 12.0 imo.
Yes. And until 2022/23, was not a NATO nation, and acquired such a vehicle because they still felt that Russia, not the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Iraqi army was their greatest threat in the region. I know this will change in the years to come, just look at the cancellation of SEP IV, and the new revision of SEP III.
lol. So despite it being on a slope on one side, and having the heavier armor and gun hanging over the other side, AND the turret still being flush with the hull, and on top of it…you’re saying it’s not attached… XD
There are many reasons for it to be tipped, off hull, or even letting us see inside the hull if what you say is true. There is clearly something still connecting the turret to the hull, despite your denial.
Nope. I just got relentlessly trolled by a bunch of Russians and Serbians on LiveLeak when 2014 went hot, fanboying for NATO gear, and calling Russian gear crap. Then people sent me actual 3rd party information like Fofanov’s website for example, and I realized I only knew half the information out there.
When you see a T-72 turret skyrocket, you think back to Easting 73, and the rumors that they all did that. Then you realize that not every turret pops. Then you see combat footage of T-72’s surviving combat, and all of a sudden you realize that the sheer amount of sensationalization that has gone into what you thought was reliable information is suddenly a little ridiculous. Then you notice that episode of History Channel/Discovery Channel/Military Channel your watching is sponsored by Lockheed or Honeywell, etc. Then it all clicks and you realize that there’s more going on than anyone could ever know, and that there’s a crap-ton of nuance regarding the subject.
But if you want to keep watching the same clips and extrapolating across the data set, be my guest, lol.
Want to source that it’s not? Lmao. And crap is relative. It’s great against non-tandem ATGM’s and IED’s. It’s not great against Kinetic threats. Unless you’re talking about the Merkava, that is the one thing that allegedly has ‘tanked’ some Kornets in combat in Gaza. Even then, Mk.III’s and IV’s have never faced kinetic threats on the battlefield.
What a load of ignorance. NATO has been retooling for peer to peer engagement for the past decade. The main problem here is that Russia in War Thunder is fielding the 2018 or so T-80BVM with its most modern ammo against a 2000 M1A2SEP firing 1992 ammo. That would be a very different picture if the T-80BVM had to fight the uparmored SEP v.3 firing M829A4 cutting through the BVM hull like butter.
lol. So despite it being on a slope on one side, and having the heavier armor and gun hanging over the other side, AND the turret still being flush with the hull, and on top of it…you’re saying it’s not attached… XD
Yes, because most of the weight is in the back due to the Brits making a turret shell that weights more than the Yamato. Quit your malding mate, it’s disloged very clearly.
There are many reasons for it to be tipped, off hull, or even letting us see inside the hull if what you say is true. There is clearly something still connecting the turret to the hull, despite your denial.
The only thing keeping that turret in place is the amount of copium you’re inhaling right now.
