Actually its 92 on C which is the model that does have AGM65G’s, not to mention unlike F-16 Gripen Drops single countermeasure every single time which makes it much better then F-16C.
and large caliber
Yup.
It’s like saying “I have a dog” and “I have a German shepherd”. They mean the same thing but one is more specific.
Saying “I have dogs” does not mean “i only have sheep dogs” though, for example
1 Like
Its not a big problem 4 the us anymore but when i posted this their was a 50% sale and most one death leavers where on my team. Now, that its not just the US im getting plenty of kills
YOU’RE wasting your time typing to necrons, we’ve been telling him this for years.
so many bug reports…
Possibly, yeah
1 Like
The armor is totally inaccurate
gjn knows this they just refuse to fix it because players complained their tanks aren’t the best
we knows this.
everybody knows this.
it was literally confirmed by a US Tank Commander who plays the game
anyone who says otherwise is just after easy kills. its the same thing that happened to the bomber mains in 2014. Ask me how i know.
the armor was functioning correctly with the tank came out. the upper frontal pannel the drivers viewport is on supposed to be able to bounce up to 3bm42. it was literally designed to bounce 3bm42 upwards into the composite and yet because of the game engine works it blows right through it
3 Likes
Wait so, why weren’t these taken into consideration? At least the one above seems like from an official source/museum or display
This is my biggest issue with the Abrams. In less than 2 seconds of opening fire on me from the front, that BMP-2 took out 2 of my crew members, my gun, my turret ring and set me on fire.
Fixing this would be a bigger buff than any DU armor.
1 Like
Type 89?
lol yeah, i didn’t look at the killfeed, i just saw those “ears” on the side and assumed it was a bmp, but the bmp autocannon can do the same thing
Completely disregarding what y’all are arguing about, I’d like to point out that the m829 and m829a1 have much higher penetration values than in game in that “anti armor munitions” figure that you attached.
Firstly, the m829. The figure states 525mm penetration at 2km with 1660m/s muzzle velocity. As shown above, in game the m829 round has 10m/s higher muzzle velocity but the penetration is set to 444mm at 0° and 257mm at 60°. I don’t know if the figure refers to a certain angle of attack but either way the in game value is wrong when put against the figure shown.
Secondly, the m829a1. The figure states 650mm penetration at 2km with 1660m/s muzzle velocity. In game the m829a1 has a muzzle velocity of 1575m/s as shown above which is 85m/s slower than what’s shown in the figure. The penetration value is also much lower in game compared to the figure
However, I did find a Marine corps tank employment distribution statement that have figures for the m829 and m829a1 that suggest the muzzle velocity of both rounds are correctly modeled as well as the m829a2.
This states a penetration of 540mm at 2km with the m829
Penetration values without context are not useful. Here’s why:
For conventional AP shells, penetration drops somewhat linearly against sloped armor. A simple rule of thumb is that a shell rated for 120 mm of penetration against flat (0°) armor will only penetrate about 60 mm of armor sloped at 45°.
APFSDS behaves differently. Long-rod penetrators are much better at defeating angled armor because they “normalize” on impact and are less affected by slope. Instead of losing half their penetration at 45°, they retain much more of it. A modern APFSDS round with 120 mm of penetration at 0° might still penetrate around 85–95 mm at 45°.
On paper, a 45° RHA plate doubles its effective protection compared to flat armor. This is why you sometimes see very high penetration figures such as 700–800 mm quoted for APFSDS rounds: those numbers often refer to penetration of armor at high obliquity (like 60°). When converted to a flat-plate equivalent, they look enormous but that’s not really the way it is.
It doesn’t.
Sources refer to line-of-sight penetration at a certain angle of attack at 2000 meters, not penetration at the vertical.
That specific source also isn’t a primary source, it’s superseded by other most authoritative sources.
It’s the russian privilege