Abrams Armor BUFF

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
31

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…

32

It’s not like the Abrams need a buff anyway they already need to go up in BR

1 Like
33

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.

34

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

35

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
36

Gaijin clearly disagreed. In their eyes an Increased RoF was less harmful than decreasing their BR across the board.

37

There isn’t such thing as a buff, just realism. The Abrams needs it realistic armor

38

Yeah because they prioritize the us

39

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
40

No they do not lol look at the F-14D dev blog

41

IMG_2625

42

So what did they mean by this?

43

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?

44

So it’s doing worse than where they need it to be, so it’s subpar (as in below-parity).

45

We just got the sepv3 and the only buff it gets is turret armor and a new round that has less pen than dm53 lol gaijin ain’t hiding it

46

they mentioned that the m829a3 gets a better anti era tip

47

Definitely untrue/low tier ragebait lol. Even good Abrams players are not near impossible to deal with 9/10 if you get the jump on them you’re Golden. That turret basket is guaranteed to be gone.

In fact I pray for an Abrams over a challenger everytime in my BMPT. Speaking of which the Type 90 is the only other MBT with a neck as weak as the Abrams able to be trounced by a BMPT using meager APDS (no FS). That’s SAD LOL. If the Abrams was OP it would have the trifecta to a T. But it doesn’t. The Leopard fits that mold better but even then? They aren’t as strong as they used to be either. So again. Idk why you’re struggling with an Abrams of all things…

The only time an Abrams excels is when it’s not seen, but at that point a T-90M too? A Leo 2A7V. Hell a Leopard 2A4, a T-72A unseen can be just as deadly to you personally if he gets the jump? So idk what’s so uniquely scary about the Abrams in War Thunder of all games in 2026??? Maybe when it first came out, sure. It was actually OP. I railed against it then. But now? Heck no. You’d gotta be joking…

48

M1A2C* not SEP V3 production model… There is an excuse to not even buff the turret. Be LUCKY if that turret stays buffed. I recommend to not complain or else they’ll remove that. The SEP V3 isn’t in game until it’s named that in my book.

49

I’m a bit confused, what is the M1A2C then?

From my understanding the M1A2C and SepV3 were interchangeable?

50

M1A2C was a new naming convention proposed by either the Army or Congress, can’t remember which, to simplify the names for SEP modifications. SEP would become M1A2A, SEPv2 → M1A2B, SEPv3 → M1A2C, and SEPv4 → M1A2D.

This was never adopted. Every official document for the SEPv3 says SEPv3. The TM says SEPv3. The budget documents say SEPv3. There is no other tank somehow called M1A2C.

The tank in game as visually modeled is a SEPv3 and Gaijin is incorrectly calling a M1A2C off a naming convention that was never adopted. (Note I may be to blame for this since I made the OG suggestion right around when the new name was proposed and called it M1A2C like a lot of articles at the time did. My bad.)

1 Like