You are textbook example
Please tell me not every American is similar to you there should be normal ones as well
BECAUSE WE all know a loss percentage of 580% is a victory.
Do you actually think a T72-B3 can go up against a m1a2 Sep V3 in real life and win?
notice how necrons never directly addresses any points ever made to him.
If this is about in game this is a massive level of cope
2 Likes
In either case it’s cope.
Throughout armoured warfare history it’s been true that whichever vehicle spots the enemy first generally wins the engagement. This remains true regardless of the vehicles potentially being imbalanced in terms of capabilities.
It’s pure Cope to believe that somehow, and for unknown reasons the M1 Abrams is magically exempt from this rule that applies to every other vehicle in existence.
1 Like
It’s also cope that the US never developed better armor for the M1A2 than an export package from 40 years ago.
4 Likes
Thats a shit example ngl.
1 Like
Did u see me mentioning “Ingame”?
1 Like
That also if the T72B3 knows the Abrams weakspots which they don’t, also i don’t think the Abrams crew wouldn’t see a shit box hiding, the T72B3 crew wouldn’t notice the Abrams untill its too late.
1 Like
The M1A2 SEP v2 is a 2009 vehicle, by that time the composite armour it uses is ‘‘only’’ 19 years old, which doesn’t seem out of the ordinary considering how the periods of time other armour systems were used for.
The documents I’ve read point to no significant upgrades having been carried out, but this is limited to the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP, beyond that point I can’t make any educated claims.
I do wonder however why the M1A2 SEP still hasn’t received the upgraded turret side armour vs CE, myself and many others have bug reported that quite a while back.
The M1A2 SEP v3 does seem to have received notable armour upgrades, I wonder how Gaijin is going to interpret that once they implement it.
I guinely get confused every time you reply.
In what reality are gunner’s ever trained to specifically aim for weakspots? This simply isn’t a thing and you’re confusing gaming with real life crew training, which is baffling.
Ask any tanker across any country whether they’re taught to aim for weakspots, and the answer will always be a resounding ‘‘No’’.
Tanks are often knocked out without physically being destroyed, that means the crew either bails, a mission-kill is scored via the tracks, optics, or other external features being destroyed, or the shot simply comes from the side or rear.
Both vehicles are equipped with thermal sights, the likelyhood the M1A2 sees the T-72B3 first is indeed greater due to it’s CITV, but that’s not what we were discussing and that’d be moving the goalpost.
My point is that the vehicle which sees it’s opponent first, generally wins. This has been proven time and again throughout history, yet you’re acting as though the M1 is magically exempt from this.
There’s a reason why ‘‘Don’t be spotted’’ is a major part of the survivability onion.
2 Likes
Already everyone laughing at your posts pal just leave with some dignity if u have some left.
1 Like
I knew you gonna get confused by my replies since you the one saying that the Autoloader tech which still exist in the latest Russians tanks is a good thing, and the reason they blow up like that isn’t the caroussel fault, which is funny cz its literally the problem of that firework.
i 100% sure they’re told where to aim when you see a certain tank, not to shoot like an idiot which gonna put your crew in danger, if the T72B3 crew shoot like i mentioned it would get a ricochet, why? because simply they wouldn’t be able to penetrate the hull, which i see you’re confused by thinking the ingame Abrams is like the one in real life, that’s what makes it funny because its armor is very classified unlike the Russians.
That’s what the Russians cannot achieve unfortunately, a simple hit from the outside would make the tank vaporize with its crew inside.
I doubt that very much, the T72B3 would be equipped with such thermals as the Abrams.
Im not saying that the Abrams cannot be destroyed, all m saying is that the armor is classified, i doubt that the russian crew would know where to hit, that if the Abrams didn’t see them first which likely will happen.
1 Like
If you are really completely 100% sure you should be able to back your claim with official training documents right?
Because 100% sure means you have either read documents from tank gunner training or you have gone through said training.
isn’t that stuff classified? or you gonna pull this trick like Gaijin does?
I wouldn’t know.
But if you know something 100% sure than it can be proven with documentation or first hand experience. So as a curious neutral party in this discussion, I’m just asking for proof for a 100% sure claim.
He probably thinks tank guns are laser accurate and Gunners aim down the barrel too
4 Likes
Define “significant,” because I don’t think any military would waste resources improving their armor for little to no benefit.
Dude this is absolutely hysterical patriotism fever, War Thunder already takes a few liberties that make the Abrams stronger than it should be. 3BM42 can lol pen the UFP of the Abrams IRL, but doesn’t because of the auto bounce mechanic.
Even a non-penetrating shot to the turret or hull would be detrimental to electronics and optics by the shear transfer of kinetic energy, it’s all about who spots who first.
The only reason the Abrams is so easy to kill in WT is because of the massive weak spots that are extremely easy to aim, since aiming down the breach eliminates any parallax and “mouse aim” makes pointing and firing extremely quick.
My bad