Friend, Abrams is sitting in the middle of Moscow. How don’t they know it’s weakspot?
2 Likes
It’s angled too high only for t62 gun but not for t72 gun.
It’s angle doesn’t prevent sabot from hitting it and it only has like 320 mm Los protection. Anything 400+ goes through
The captured one in Moscow is a M1A1. nothing near the M1A2 SEP v3 that the US has. they gave away their old bad ones or downgraded some mid tier ones to Ukraine.
2 Likes
Sep3 has no improvement in the area with atgm hole.
Too bad
the M1A2 does. you missed the difference A1 → A2
not only that, the M1A1 that the us uses has the Uranium armor that Ukraine didn’t get.
It doesn’t matter against kornet its paper
yes?
but having a big missile isn’t a weakness in the tank.
any tank ever will explode if you hit it with a big enough missile.
Your argument was “knowing weakness” when they don’t. its not even close to the same armor or technology.
the tank Ukraine got was produced in 1985.
useless points? you brought it up to begin with, you said they had it in Moscow and i explained that they don’t. how is that useless? sep 3 isn’t in Ukraine.
the ammo in the turret is on purpose so that the crew does not die when it explodes.
EVERY tank in Ukraine at the moment on BOTH sides is paper against fpv. none of the tanks were designed to be used against fpv drones.
it is very much protected against mines. the crew survive instead of exploding with the ammo.
1 Like
No
Yes protected from mine that’s why a couple were lost to mines
wow… no reality here.
lost to mines? they lost tracks. then fpv finish off. very rational. can you show proof of M1A1 getting destroyed by mine?
You can draw the sequence of events and conclude that the first event is mine explosion.
Yes let’s call it mine ‘protection’
that is the definition of mine protection. tracks and external damage but alive crew and no internal damage.
The T-serries tanks tend to explode completely when driving over mines, not every time but still to often for it to be called mine protection.
You are very clueless the mines that hit tracks are not very harjful to tank itself be it t or Abrams. Even ifv take track hits and lose roadwheels.
Neither Abrams nor t is protected from mine hitting the underside.
But i agree Abrams is safe from mines and should keep being used in this manner.
semi true. i’ve seen T-serries explode completely on mines. i’ve not seen any other tank do that. feel free to prove me wrong.
sure, they can. but its not very common, most of them just explode completely depending on varriant.
semi true. Abrams is somewhat protected. not completely. but still better than the T-serries.
Edit:
also, i’m VERY curious, what tank in Ukraine isn’t paper against fpv?
1 Like
I’ve explained my stance on numerous occasions to you, I’ve even referenced you to a TheChieftain video which goes into detail on this topic.
You’ve refused to read my explanations multiple times by now, you clearly also refused to watch the video.
If you’re not interested in any meaningful discussion, feel free to say so and I’ll simply block you.
They’re taught to aim centre-mass.
This goes for any country that I’m aware of.
I’m sure you have all the documents required to back up this claim.
I’m pretty sure the SEPV3 wouldn’t get its hull penetrated by any shell.
You were also 100% sure the gunner’s were taught to aim for weakspots.
that’s a video for leopards, not Abrams. they might train differently in the US (i don’t actually know, i just thought your evidence was weird)
I’m not going to search for 10 different videos on all the various countries.
TheChieftain has stated the same thing for US tankers.