China has an Abrams, & armor corrections wouldn’t impact USSR players at all. They already aim for spots that wouldn’t be up-armored.
1 Like
Nah they defintely do, it a great tank in that TT.
Turret neck definitely needs some redoing.
Armour on the Abrams is perfectly fine. Theres nothing to complain about.
1 Like
wait i thought you cant use red color text
1 Like
https://www.scribd.com/document/694167984/M1-Abrams-Composite-Armor-Layout
There are several glaring issues with the armor. And after looking at about 30 or so bug reports titled as “not a bug” even with peovided peoof and documentation it really is showing just how deeply inbedded the voices of those who truly do not know better or want to glorify a different nation.
Yours truly, a russian main.
They ain’t buffing the hull armor unless we have god come down and stroke the devs or something outrageous. So I just want the stuff they accepted as bugs. The turret ring has to change from 50mm to 250mm/volumetric. And we should have that bulkhead armor above the fuel tanks. Those two changes are enough in my book.
The 455mm KE protection won’t change much especially if that’s the zones backed by the fuel tanks. If that’s the middle part with no fuel tanks at max the armor goes up to 500mm which is something all tanks at the M1A1 BR can go through even at far range. You’d need to expose your side armor at long range to make it even semi effective.
Even if that’s true, it’s a useless change imo. I’d rather the stuff that’s crippling to the tank get changed. Also an ERA buff would be nice too. Nothing Relikt level (to my knowledge at least) but it should do more at least against HEAT, and tandem…
It’s not like the Abrams need a buff anyway they already need to go up in BR
1 Like
If that were true, other tanks would have gone up already.
Also there would have been no need to increase the RoF from 10 RPM to 12, in order to paper over the sub-par performance.
The way theyre modled ingame the entire front plate is an easy kill if youre judging this “need for a nerf” by personal experience rather than documented innacuracy then maybe dont play top tier, i play russia, germany, sweden, japan, france, gb, and the u.s. all at top teir and i can see the glaring easy kill that is every abrams, counterpart for every single other nations mbt you have to choose where ro aim in a pinpoint fasion. To end on this not the abrams is the opposite you can kill it from the front without even aiming down sight 80% of the time
THERE WAS NO NEED TO INCREASE THE ROF??? Abrams are blatantly OP at their BR. ESPECIALLY the M1A1 HC.
I play Russia, Germany, Japan, France, GB, USA, Italy, and China, granted not all at top tier but the nations you play means nothing.
Despite the fact they have the second best shell at 12.0, the best top tier reload, amazing mobility, a good turret traverse, amazing turret armour. Not everything is about hull armour you know? Literally just go hull down. The M1A1HC is the BEST 12.0 in the game, and should be 12.7, all other Abrams I don’t have any experience in so it’s all facing them.
2 Likes
Gaijin clearly disagreed. In their eyes an Increased RoF was less harmful than decreasing their BR across the board.
There isn’t such thing as a buff, just realism. The Abrams needs it realistic armor
Yeah because they prioritize the us
So, where’s the Pantsir, BMPT, LEMR, R-73, R-77 Kh-38MT equivalents?
if it was prioritized I’d expect that at very least the US would at least have depth and options similar or superior to other trees.
It’s not like the US doesn’t have options available just that they haven’t been implemented, or are being actively ignored/ withheld.
1 Like
No they do not lol look at the F-14D dev blog
So what did they mean by this?
They didn’t say it’s subpar, bad, good, etc. They just said they weren’t satisfied with the effectiveness, do you think that strictly means they were doing bad or subpar?
So it’s doing worse than where they need it to be, so it’s subpar (as in below-parity).