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.
This picture is very YOU
2 Likes
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.
No, 3BM-42 cannot" lol pen " the the UFP of an abrams IRL your insane psycho babble illusions should simply stop here.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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