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?
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.
No, 3BM-42 cannot" lol pen " the the UFP of an abrams IRL your insane psycho babble illusions should simply stop here.
Bro is just delusional, the APFSDS is made of tungsten, it has much higher density than RHA, which means the penetrator should ‘melt through’ the armour, due to the malleable nature of the steel. The tungsten despite being very fragile, is able to cut through when in the form of an alloy. It is not pure tungsten and therefore have completely different properties. There are articles for the impact of APFSDS on RHA at high angles online, go read.
My friend has been into a leopard 2a6, its turret is controlled by a joystick which is pretty agile. The T72 is able to be destroyed in the same way as it is in game, but I feel that this should be the same for Abrams, IDK do you agree. The ABRAMS and T72 are barely seen front on but rather at an angle, therefor allowing weak spots to be exploited.
that " guys " is the same type of person on warthunders dev team.
Yeah I already have and I did again, no where did I find information saying that 3BM42 should be able to penetrate something at 80-84+ degrees.
I’m sure Gaijin don’t wanna give actual hull armor for Abrams or maybe not any NATO tanks with hull armor from onwards because you see what happen when NATO tanks with hull armor exist in the game?
Strv122 and 2A7V are proof how devastating to Russian mains
The best part about that is the 2A7V doesn’t even have correct armor lol
All tanks weakspots are the same, side, back, turret-ring, hatches.
the main difference is the ammunition storage, the T-serries has it stored in center making it easy to hit from every angle while the others (west’s tanks) usually store it in the front of hull och in a separate compartment in the turret. so if hit from the side there is no ammo detonation but you still hurt the crew, less spalling because of liners so less risk of deadly injuries. if you hit the back its engine and crew but still no ammo detonation. Front is extremely hard to penetrate so again very little risk of ammo detonation. if the turret ammo detonates it just blows the hatch open at the top and the tank still functions without issues and the ammo at the front can still be used to loas and fire but a lot slower.
The biggest issue for wests tank are drones and top down missiles.
But it would not shatter as you said, the articles merely suggested that it will ricochet but for an APFSDS to shatter is unrealistic.
Not like anyone but russia has correct armour lol. ZTZ-99A armour has been stealth nerfed twice now in the year I’ve played the game, base armour went from 120 to 100, and now it is 50, so the DM53s can simply just pen if I don’t have ERA.
We have seen an ABRAMS turret flying high into the sky before, it does happen, it is more of a mutually assured thing that if you are hit, you probably are abandoning the vehicle, since the optics are probably disabled. The Abrams has been destroyed and blew up by a T-72B3 at 2400m with a 9m119m1 INVARD. So I think it is just a game of who gets detected first, since even non penetration will lead to sever damage to optics, which means you are much less likely to be able to fire back.
i mean, if you have enough explosives anything can fly. they just don’t fly from ammo detonation alone.
if you think you’ve seen that then i’m interested in a source.
when? where? source? (not saying it didn’t happen, i actually am curious as the B3 model came 2010 so it has to be recent and thus most likely Ukraine and a M1A1 model from 1985)
Bet you think the world is flat too.