Topic: Why do you still post here?
+Indie the Grate — 1.6 year ago #64,868
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Banned from every other Web site. | - | 0% | |
| Mocked and laughed at on every other Web site. | - | 0% | |
| Minichan complaints department. | - | 0% | |
| Still obsessed with drama that happened years ago. | - | 0% | |
| Obsessed with another user and desperate for their attention. | - | 0% | |
| Don't like signing up for Web sites. | 1 | 13% | |
| Autism or other mental illness. | - | 0% | |
| All of the above. | 7 | 88% |
+Anonymous B — 1.6 year ago, 3 minutes later[T] [B] #650,952
Probably a little bit of all of the above.
·Anonymous B — 1.6 year ago, 8 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #650,953
Also I like to look at the fucked up pictures. Just getting tired of the same old Matt pictures. Need something fresh. I might be going thru a mid life chan crisis too.
+Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,957
The way MC is going, TC may be picking back up soon.
+Anonymous D — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,961
Write in: because TC's a great board.
+Anonymous E — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,964
Write in: to stop being dead
+Anonymous F — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,971
4cuck jannies banned me for the reason of their own personal opinion.
+Anonymous G — 1.5 year ago, 2 days later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #651,039
So this really is one of those questions where the simple and only answer is that we don't know. There are a few reasons for this:
The M1A2 in any form is still going to be carrying armor which is classified. So right off the bat, we have no reliable way to determine what, exactly, that armor can or cannot resist. Early M1s were not meant to be proof against contemporary 125mm APFSDS rounds, but obviously this is no longer the case. At least as far as we've been told.
"125mm APFSDS" includes at least twenty different models of round spanning something like 60 years of development. These represent wildly different performances, with several made specifically to defeat composite armor arrays as found on the Abrams. Now this doesn't mean they can, because much like the armor on the M1A2, the performance of several of these rounds are still classified. But it does means that you're looking at two hard counters to each other, of which the performance of neither we can accurately quantify.
The "hull" of the Abrams represents several different protection schemes a projectile may encounter, depending on where it hits the tank. Not that we can really make a solid judgement on how well each type of protection may perform to begin with, but even then there are parts of the Abrams across just its frontal aspect which are more vulnerable than others. As tank gunnery is still largely a matter of "aim center mass and fire", hitting any weaker potion of a given tank's armor generally falls more to luck than anything. Designers work to minimize the chance of a shot finding these weaknesses, but at the end of the day that's all it ever really is; A chance.
So in the end, even if we did know how the armor of an M1A2 really performs, the question is too vague to really answer. Are we asking about a 3BM12 shot that strikes the second left-side skirt armor panel at a 20° angle from straight ahead? Are we asking about 3BM42 against the upper glacis fired from an elevation roughly 200m above the M1's position? Are we asking about DTC10-125 hitting the composite glacis from head-on and level? There are so many variables here, just asking about caliber and range doesn't really give you anything to actually work with, and even then the whole formula is entirely reliant on variables we can't legally know.
This isn't to say it's a bad question. Just that there are some very good reasons why you won't be finding a real answer. Anyone claiming to know is either pulling it out of their ass, or about to get a visit from their local federal law enforcement agency.
The M1A2 in any form is still going to be carrying armor which is classified. So right off the bat, we have no reliable way to determine what, exactly, that armor can or cannot resist. Early M1s were not meant to be proof against contemporary 125mm APFSDS rounds, but obviously this is no longer the case. At least as far as we've been told.
"125mm APFSDS" includes at least twenty different models of round spanning something like 60 years of development. These represent wildly different performances, with several made specifically to defeat composite armor arrays as found on the Abrams. Now this doesn't mean they can, because much like the armor on the M1A2, the performance of several of these rounds are still classified. But it does means that you're looking at two hard counters to each other, of which the performance of neither we can accurately quantify.
The "hull" of the Abrams represents several different protection schemes a projectile may encounter, depending on where it hits the tank. Not that we can really make a solid judgement on how well each type of protection may perform to begin with, but even then there are parts of the Abrams across just its frontal aspect which are more vulnerable than others. As tank gunnery is still largely a matter of "aim center mass and fire", hitting any weaker potion of a given tank's armor generally falls more to luck than anything. Designers work to minimize the chance of a shot finding these weaknesses, but at the end of the day that's all it ever really is; A chance.
So in the end, even if we did know how the armor of an M1A2 really performs, the question is too vague to really answer. Are we asking about a 3BM12 shot that strikes the second left-side skirt armor panel at a 20° angle from straight ahead? Are we asking about 3BM42 against the upper glacis fired from an elevation roughly 200m above the M1's position? Are we asking about DTC10-125 hitting the composite glacis from head-on and level? There are so many variables here, just asking about caliber and range doesn't really give you anything to actually work with, and even then the whole formula is entirely reliant on variables we can't legally know.
This isn't to say it's a bad question. Just that there are some very good reasons why you won't be finding a real answer. Anyone claiming to know is either pulling it out of their ass, or about to get a visit from their local federal law enforcement agency.
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 1.5 year ago, 48 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #651,041
+Anonymous I — 1.5 year ago, 3 days later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #651,185
combination of reasons:
1. why not 2. the lawn 3. phone forum is novelty 4. to spite kimmo
1. why not 2. the lawn 3. phone forum is novelty 4. to spite kimmo
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.