Adding Round shattering physics and More armor to Abrams

[Patecline]

First off, amazing display of Russian tanks getting destroyed! Well done! Love seeing it.

But my only problem with this is that a lot of the kills come from hitting them in the side, which is obviously a death sentence for any T-series tanks. And that goes for all tanks, including Western ones.

Now, I will give you credit, there are shots where you do penetrate T series tanks from the front. Some hit weak points like the driver vision port ore LFP. While especially on lower BR T-72s around 9.3 to 10.7. The 120 mm gun has no problem penetrating the UFP on those Versions. There are also shots from above, which would obviously penetrate as well.

But from my experience, and probably others, facing T-series tanks from the front is an extremely unfair advantage. From my perspective, T-series tanks have much greater survivability, while Western tanks—especially the M1 Abrams—have significantly worse survivability.

Now, I will admit that later versions of the M1 like the m1a2, M1A2 SEP and so on. Have much better survivability, especially in the turret cheeks. Where my problem comes in is the awful balance and modeling of the M1 version that sits at 10.7, while the T-80B also sits at 10.7. I think it’s clear to many players that the T-80B has way better armor and survivability, at least from the front.

And that matters, because most tank engagements happen frontally, where tankers are trying to face the threat with their frontal armor. The T-80B can take much more punishment. Yes, there are weak spots everywhere, but compared to the M1, they are tiny and hard to hit. On the M1 and other Western tanks, the weak spots are much bigger and far easier to hit.

The most broken part of all is the M1’s turret cheeks, which are supposed to be the most armored part of the tank. They can be penetrated by the T-80B’s 3BM42 at 2000 m. Most engagements happen at much closer ranges. Meanwhile, the M1’s best round can’t reliably penetrate the T-80B’s turret armor or UFP.

Now, maybe this is realistic, though I doubt it. But even if it is, this is obviously not balanced. Either the T-80B needs to be moved up in BR, or the M1 needs to be moved down.

What I actually think should happen is that the M1’s armor should be buffed to withstand T-80Bs rounds, with smaller weak spots just like the T-series tanks. This would require higher player skill and would make MBTs actually feel tanky, at least for NATO/Western tanks.

M1 weak spots could be things like the turret ring (which is already a big weak spot anyway), the gunner sight, or the commander’s cupola. I think either approach could work, although I personally would prefer a buff to the M1’s armor and then adjusting the other M1 models as well like the LFP and mantlet which were up armored as it resaved upgrades.

I think all Western tanks in the game need some armor buffs. From my experience, and as a War Thunder player who has played for almost 8 years, I believe there is a major imbalance, with Russian tanks being significantly more survivable than their Western counterparts.

Yours truly,
a tank historian : )

[Patecline]

T series tanks have way smaller week spots, don’t forget that Western tanks are also bigger then T series tanks. Also these photos should be all the prove that there is a unbalance with the M1 and T-80B. infect the problem goes up to the m1a1 as well. with the M1A1 and T-80U having the same unbalance.

There is a clear problem with balance here. These tanks are at the same BR! this must change. Ether buff the M1s armor ore move it lower. ore the T-80 higher.
Yours truly,
a tank historian : )

[Necrons31467]

@Patecline

But my only problem with this is that a lot of the kills come from hitting them in the side

You can almost always hit the sides, so there’s no reason not to take advantage of it.

Top tier isn’t like low tier where angling is effective, at top-tier you can overmatch side armour even at 75 degrees. That means even when a Russian/Soviet MBT is relatively head-on towards you, you can still one-hit them through the hull sides.

@Patecline

especially the M1 Abrams—have significantly worse survivability.

M1’s have massively better survivability than Russian/Soviet MBT’s. Also, Armour =/= Survivability.

• Armour = Likelihood of being penetrated.
• Survivability = Likelihood of being killed when penetrated.

M1A2 SEP’s got 6/10 armour and 6/10 survivability.
T-80BVM’s got 7/10 armour and 3/10 survivability.

@Patecline

M1 version that sits at 10.7, while the T-80B also sits at 10.7. I think it’s clear to many players that the T-80B has way better armor and survivability, at least from the front.

No offense intended, but I have a common saying in this situation: ‘‘Inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the important of armour’’.

War Thunder isn’t about who’s got the thickest frontal armour, it’s about mobility and getting the first crippling/killing shot off.
The M1 Abrams is the best 10.7 in the game, precisely because it suits this meta so incredibly well.

@Patecline

And that matters, because most tank engagements happen frontally

They do not.

@Patecline

The T-80B can take much more punishment.

I’m getting the strong feeling you’ve never played the T-80B, because that thing pops the turret the moment something looks at it.
It’s not known for it’s armour protection, it’s known for being the first Soviet MBT that actually doesn’t have crappy mobility.

@Patecline

The most broken part of all is the M1’s turret cheeks, which are supposed to be the most armored part of the tank.

The M1 Abrams’ turret cheeks are performing as they should.

It was designed to resist Soviet 115mm (not 125mm) APFSDS at a range between 800-1200m at a 60 degree frontal arc.
In other words: '70s ammunition at ranges beyond those typically found in War Thunder, and the T-80B has '80s 3BM-42 APFSDS.

@Patecline

the gunner sight, or the commander’s cupola

Hitting these with APFSDS won’t do anything. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

@Patecline

I think all Western tanks in the game need some armor buffs. From my experience, and as a War Thunder player who has played for almost 8 years, I believe there is a major imbalance

Western MBT’s are generally superior already.

You can’t have them also have equal/superior armour protection when they already offer superior gun handling, reloads, mobility and survivability.

@Patecline

T series tanks have way smaller week spots

Which is essentially the only positive thing they’ve got going for them, next to good penetration.

@Patecline

don’t forget that Western tanks are also bigger then T series tanks.

Not relevant in War Thunder.

@Patecline

Also these photos should be all the prove that there is a unbalance with the M1 and T-80B.

Not really.

You’ve mis-used the armour analysis tool here, you shouldn’t have ‘‘Consider camera vertical angle’’ enabled, it gives you a false view.

Secondly, as already stated: Frontal armour doesn’t matter much when you can simply pop the sides, and even if you can’t, there’s no reason not to hit weakspots now that laser rangefinders are a thing, especially at closer ranges.

@Patecline

There is a clear problem with balance here. These tanks are at the same BR!

M1 Abrams is already superior to the T-80B.
The M1A1 is superior to any Russian MBT in their entire tech tree, yet it sits at 11.7.

[SadRIPer]

They won’t buff the Abrams, because Russia has to dominate everywhere

[MotorolaCRO]

Only if their tanks dominated at top tier.

[Patecline]

This discussion was helpful to me!

No offense
While I fell as if you left out some things and cherry piked some information it was helpful. I still hold my belief that T series tanks, in general have better survivability and armor protection. And i think armor plays a big role. you don’t want a dart flying thro your tank. But i think you are holding to the belief that Western tanks are better, and in some chases they are, in some aspects. But i see this discussion going nowhere. I think your wrong, and you think I’m wrong. So i will levee it as it is and pass the torch to another to carry it forward, and continuum this debate fore me.

In regards to "No offense intended, but I have a common saying in this situation: *‘‘Inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the important of armor’’

No offense taken. As i have my experience behind me and confidence in my ability’s. While i can se others getting offended. armor is important, and i obviously know that flanking is the best move. And mobility are often better quality’s and just like in real life the one to often see him first and shoot him first, win the engagement.

But i digress, i see this going nowhere. and don’t want to take part in this discussion any more. i wish you a pleasant day ore night.

Yours truly
A tank historian : )

[Necrons31467]

@Patecline

I still hold my belief that T series tanks, in general have better survivability

I fail to see how the M1 Abrams with significantly safer ammunition stowage, more crew members and a more spacious interior has worse survivability than a T-series tank.

@Patecline

And i think armor plays a big role.

In War Thunder you don’t want to be hit in the first place, regardless of what tank you’re using.
Virtually all T-series tanks have identical weakspot layouts, people generally know to just aim for the LFP, driver’s hatch, breech, turret roof or sides, all of which results in either severe damage or instant turret pop.

@Patecline

and i obviously know that flanking is the best move.

You don’t have to flank in order to hit sides:

T-90M that was most definitely pointing his front towards me:

You can still easily go through side armour and one-hit them.

[Patecline]

@Necrons31467

In War Thunder you don’t want to be hit in the first place, regardless of what tank you’re using.
Virtually all T-series tanks have identical weakspot layouts, people generally know to just aim for the LFP, driver’s hatch, breech, turret roof or sides, all of which results in either severe damage or instant turret pop.

I know this.