No it can’t, the UFP is angled too high for the APFSDS to go through. The bounce mechanic is also unrealistic because the APFSDS penetrator would shatter upon hitting at such a high angle, not bounce.
It’s also why the Abrams has a turret ring weakspot in game because the UFP and underside of the turret are angled so much that any APFSDS that hits it should shatter into less-effective shards. Hitting only the turret ring should also be much, much more difficult than it is now, as for the majority of the turret ring you have only ~5-10mm of leeway. Even with War Thunder’s mouse aim, being accurate to the 5-10mm range is just not going to happen 99.99999% of shots taken.
Stating obvious facts is patriotism now? + i ain’t even american.
Wait what? u added lol i don’t know if thats satire or not.
Oh shit didn’t know this one.
Thats for Russian shit boxes which yeah can be.
That which aren’t in real life, no abrams has been penetrated from the front.
A shot to the breach would kill the crew in the game not just disable the tank, that’s what makes it funny how the SEPV2 still has the same armor from the 80’s.
There are plenty of simulations online showing the capabilities of 3BM42 on the Abrams, War Thunder is not very far off from reality except for the fact that WT has a much simplified damage model, armor fatigue and cracking is not in the game.
That have no way of verifying their authenticity.
APFSDS shattering is also not in game (not enough, at least).
He is also blanket statement saying “Abrams”. 3BM42 would definitely smack a M1 or M1IP even M1A1 at “closer” ranges
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
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.
