I think you quote the wrong guy to reply. I never made the claim thay newer generations of DU only improving multi-hit capabilities.
I was simply telling Necrons31467 that there are a clue that show Sweden M1A2 export armor package might not be the same level as DU armor package and only able to catch up after they upgrade them after Sweden competition
But will give the source anyway it was just an article probably an interview. (welp as i said a little bit of clue)
Those aside. To track of what i know M1A1HA and M1A2 use different turret armor packege. The HAP-1 are on M1A1HA while HAP-2 are on M1A2 .
I only found some quote from Conraire back in the old forum.
He said that “Main difference between HAP-1 and 2 is HAP-2 has better multi hit durability.”
But I didn’t see any source that show/point out that HAP-1 has the same protection as HAP-2 yet.
Other than that there are another source from UK which show 650mm vs KE for M1A2 turret front. Post by (Flame2512) but that post got delete later for some reason. So i won’t show them until i know it clear.
Short answer: No.
You cause far more confusion and backlash with such a system, as well as causing potential issues of player choice depending on how it’s implemented.
I appreciate that but have you looked at the M1 HC (I think it’s this one) against a T-90A? The T-90A can literally go through it anywhere. turret cheeks and all. UFP LFP turret ring turret cheeks all let the T-90A sabot go through at 500m. and at 1000m it only then struggles with the right hand turret cheek. this is only using protection analysis which I don’t feel like it’s accurate but that is what it shows. That also being said. I rarely play higher than 8.3
There’s basically 2 types of tanks at 9.0-11.7, ones with russian ERA that allow areas other than turret face to have survivability against darts, and ones that don’t, but have better gun depression and reverse speeds.
New players are going to have a much better time in russian tanks, because their bad/noob playstyle of W into the fight and just duke it out is going to be better suited for russian tanks (and they will constantly bounce shots off russian tanks).
This does bring up an issue, some players think that playing in deadspace, and abusing binos, 3rd person camera etc. (camping in CoD terms) is a boring or morally inferior playstyle, but its just playing to the strengths of those tanks.
There is another issue with map design, you don’t want to bring nato tanks into a city EVER, you are at a disadvantage 100% as you can’t hide your vulnerable lower section and will be easily one shot the second anything gets guns on you, while you however either have to 2 shot a russian tank taking the gun out first, or pray you hit lfp and fuel tanks don’t absorb everything or you die.
Devs reworking maps to remove these sniper posistions that nato tanks need to play around their advantages/disadvantages is not great though. We need map design that has both elements of urban and more open sections.
In fact, the base M1 Abrams is a more META vehicle than the T-90A is, the T-90A is among the worst high tier MBT’s in the entire game.
That doesn’t matter, the T-90A has:
Abysmal gun depression, gun elevation speed and atrocious turret traverse.
Horrendous reverse speed, poor acceleration, no neutral steering and low top speed, both on and off roads.
Slow reload rate, and will soon be further nerfed by the introduction of the autoloader.
Terrible survivability due to exposed ammunition everywhere, only 3 crew and everything being packed like a can of sardines.
Unreliable armour and easily exploited side armour that leads to constant one-hit-deaths.
The only good things about it are it’s thermals, but there’s plenty of vehicles at even lower BR’s with 2nd gen thermals already, and it’s 3BM-60 APFSDS, but then again the T-80B with 3BM-42 already penetrates anything it can meet so there very little actual impact with the upgraded penetration.
The T-80B is a better vehicle than the T-90A, and the T-80B is a lower BR ontop of that. Besides, you could also buy the 10.0 T-80UD and essentially have the T-90A experience at a more favourable BR.
Off topic, but why is this a NATO tank thing? Russian tanks have demonstrated that their lack of gun elevation is a glaring weakness, and their lower front plates are far more vulnerable and a far more attractive target than that of most NATO MBTs. I believe these shortcomings are more prevalent in russian tank design than NATO tank designs.
Their lfp are not more attractive targets because of the angle, no tanks lfp is stopping anything tho. Gun elevation is a meme, what they lack in urban enviroments where infrantry exists is a remote weapon system for their commander. Getting out of the tank to man your pintel mount is suicide (wish WT modeled this).
Well I mean the only things Abrams has over the T-90A then is mobility and reload and gun depression and elevation. other than that it has got unreliable armor that is easily exploited at any angle at almost any point and being a gargantuan tank compared to T-90. so I mean yeah it is “worse” but then the abrams is also “worse” depending on how you look at it. I wasn’t saying T-90 is better I was just saying that if you don’t know how to kill a abrams then that is just as much a “skill issue” as not being able to kill a T-90
What makes something meta is having really good armor without being a tortoise. The 2A7V/122B+ aren’t speed demons, and the T-80BVM was never made of paper.
No it can’t, you must be thinking of A1 and IP, everything after that (A1HC/A2/AIM) uses further upgraded armour and the turret cheeks will block most APFSDS in the game.
Their LFPs are more attractive targets because the massive carousel behind them. Did you forget that? It’s not about the plate itself, its about whats behind it.
M829A2 is the 3rd highest pen round, and even then at 3rd place it still is only 18m more than M338, and 14mm more than the type 10 round. Also it matters not if the round would make a difference or not but its been said that both the DM53 and the m829a3s anti era tips have defeated even the Relict ERA from the Ruskies. Which honestly wouldn’t be to bad of an addition since they have the smallest pen areas minus the leo2a7/strvs.
Not to mention the M1A1 AIM never had DU in the turret makes this whole argument null and void, its an Aussie Abrams therefore export IE no DU, and the fact that 5 prototypes exist with DU in the hull, and not to mention the SEPV2s improved torsion bars(huh wonder what that’s for), but I digress.
The fact that their is not different armor values period from the M1A1-M1A2SEPV2 in game is embarrassing and a lack of foresight.
this is the biggest problem with neckbeards in warthunder. Armor apparently never advances nor does rounds with new technology being discovered. almost like they can fit more mass in those spaces after 30 years but hey whatever