In the firing tests, the Osorio managed to hit a target every 4 seconds, traveling 70 km per hour, with a total of 16 strikes during a 32-second course. The results were repeated by the Saudi crew. In the same course, the Abrams M-l made 12 strikes.
Huh, interesting. Offensive firepower seems better at face value, but I wonder if there were other factors. Weight may be a ”problem” on the surface, but weight is also armor, so if the Abrams were better able to take a hit then I’d assume that is part of the calculation.
Maybe it’s decision making that militaries have always faced - lighter, faster, more maneuverable but not able to take damage, vs. heavier, less maneuverable, but able to take a hit or two and potentially keep fighting.
I’m guessing the tradeoff is less armour and other survivability features. The Abrams is designed to remain survivable even if the ammo cooks off IIRC, which must add an insane amount to both the weight and the cost.
That source claims it had better accuracy:
It was also ~10 tons lighter than the Abrams, thus easier to transport.
The real deal best source would be finding Saudi documents of that test, which is very unlikely for us to have access to.
War Thunder forums, this is your calling.
Time to start nerfing Osorios, but only when the language is set to Arabic.
Huh, interesting. Offensive firepower seems better at face value, but I wonder if there were other factors. Weight may be a ”problem” on the surface, but weight is also armor, so if the Abrams were better able to take a hit then I’d assume that is part of the calculation.
Maybe it’s decision making that militaries have always faced - lighter, faster, more maneuverable but not able to take damage, vs. heavier, less maneuverable, but able to take a hit or two and potentially keep fighting.
I’m guessing the tradeoff is less armour and other survivability features. The Abrams is designed to remain survivable even if the ammo cooks off IIRC, which must add an insane amount to both the weight and the cost.