More about thw dude wanting the abrams to become an impenetrable hold w machine.
The issue with the abrams now isnt the tank, its the players, the little tweeks like tbe turret side armour etc make sense and im for it.
But they gave a top tier round one of the best , which originally was only top tier, to 11.7 tanks which is ridiculous they can see 10.7.
Lets not even mention you can pay for the clickbait which has access to said round…
The abrams im using are fine thwy dont newd yet major buff like op wants aka DU hull inserts to make it a driving fortress
Okay so then make it less movile and drop its reload rate.
The abrams irl has been less protected8 than the challanger 2 so why doesnt the challanger 2 get close to what it has irl?
The game has to be balanced as well, to continuesly buff american equipment because the players cant use it, is not balance.
Im about 50k rp from the m1a2 abrams man and genuinely the m1a1, HC, IPM1 are all great tanks.
The 5 second reload , m829a2, great turret armour and mobile as hell makes them great tanks
Abrams has superior protection level than Challenger 2 in real life, Challenger 2 even lacks blowout panels which became standart protection level for almost any Nato tank.
Not to mention current Challenger 2’s armor overperforming in this game, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The only buff Abrams has recieved is reload buff which other tanks also recieved, this is also lie.
Yet you’re performance on those tanks are nothing special, if they are such a great tanks why cant you perform better in those tanks compare to your Challenger’s service record?
There alway player like that in any nations though. And even with DU hull (assume Gaijin add prototype M1A2 that has DU from 5 prototype) They would still be comparable to Leopard2A7 / late STRV122s at best. (i would argued that Abrams is a bit wrost due to turret ring being issue in game.)
Abrams dont need more armor in game, maybe only the fuel tank protection which will improve ~20mm, if im not mistake, to the sides of the hull.
Abrams have two big deal:
it can be stun lock bc of the hydraulic pump location: 1 shot at the center, if not dead, you lose engine + pump and you became useless, just J out to respaw quicker… and that happens WAYYY to often…
(Community Bug Reporting System)
Hur Dur turret ring, yeah, its a problem when small calibers can pen and kill you frontally… i dont care if any “conventional” round from any MBT kill me from there, but man… even DM13 can pen and kill an abrams thru turret ring.
Without theses 2 knowledge about abrams, which no noob have, you cant play it correctly, even knowing it its hard some times depending of the map and that is what really bring down the abrams.
Even with theses 2 flaws still a good tank, but need to know what you are doing to do good. Maybe Gaijin should re-think about this once more new players start at US lineup…
Im finishing spading the 12.0 GER lineup and i missed some aspects of the US lineup: insane mobility, reload speed, 1 more gun depression angle angle (yes)… (remove the Leopard 2A7V from this, that is another level).
scuse me but the challanger 2 is touted and has been touted as one of the most survivable and defensive MBTs of its era and it has proven so time n time again. To claim otherwise is a lie. Hell even in you know where i wont mention, its done exceedingly better than anticipated, its missing armour packages, and still managed for the crew to survive after a direct hit with I believe a kornet missile was it?. Its literally designed around being able to take hits and fire back, even the challanger 3 which will have even more impressive composites is designed the same way.
the armour of the challanger 2 in game is massively under performing.
Id like you to provide a source to state that its over performing in any capacity at all.
The challanger 2s i do far worse with over all compared to the abrams and specifically i have 5 challanger 2s to 3 abrams.
hell most the challanger 2s ive got arent even 1.0 KD so yeah.
That is straight up bullshit, if you’re talking about ongoing conflict in Ukraine then let me remind you that Leopards performs much better than Challengers in there.
Not to mention we saw how many times Abrams showed its superior crew protection in Desert Storm and Kuwait, Challenger is good but not on same level that Abrams and Leopard sits at.
Its already provided on its main thread, you can go check it.
Dude then thats your problem, i do have 2 K/d ratio in my Challenger DS and its really not hard to perform in those tanks.
you do realise challanger 2, which is more protected than challanger 1 went into service 8 years after desert storm. the challanger 2 is as ive said renowned to be more well dedended
challanger 2 is not a challanger DS the DS and challanger mk3 sit at 10.3 (now 10.7) a far better BR for said tanks.
you really dont know what youre on about at all youre comparing the M1A2 abrams to a far older tank than i am
The challanger 2 had a different stoage system which IRL prevents the detonation/gives time to escape. exhibit A being hit by a kornet missile, full crew survival, recent knockout of one too, full crew survival.
both challangers do not have the same playstyle, you only have a challanger DS you dont even have the first challanger 2 yet. they are far worse than the challanger 1s in their BR bracket. and no my abrams records are better overall. statistically speaking.
wanna know the biggest let down for the abrams, the teams that use em. they just evaporate almost immediately.
Wet ammo storage doesnt provide same survivability that Blowout Panels does, you dont know what you’re talking about.
Please enlighten us how both tanks require different play style.
You have:
0.94 K/D in M1A1 HC
0.98 K/D in IPM1
0.99 K/D in M1A1
0.71 K/D in M1
Meanwhile you have:
0.94 K/D in Challenger Mk3
0.78 K/D in Challenger 2
1.0 K/D in Challenger Mk2
0.90 K/D in Challenger2(2F)
1.05 K/D in Black Knight
1.58 K/D in Vickers Mk7
1.12 K/D in Challenger 2E
Looks like you got better results in Challengers overall.
no but the massive amounts of armour to prevent the thing getting penetrated does. hence why they didnt go for a blowout panel which the challanger 3 has, but you claim the challanger 2 is less armoured than an abrams. And you say ive no idea what im on about.
the challanger 2s are a full BR step and a 0.3 above the challanger 1s
they see far higher penetrating rounds, that are fired far faster than teh challanger 1, the challanger are far less mobile for the respective BR compared to the challanger 1 while still not as mobile as its counterparts can still keep up better than the challanger 2.
did not know that was going off trynna crunch numbers in my head at a quick look.
Or maybe British designers wasnt so smart to think that blowout panel would actually do good for tank, blame the designer not messenger.
You really dont.
Chally DS also sees high penetration rounds, its only 0.3 br below than my Al-Khalid which is a tank that has APFSDS shell that can penetrate 580mm armor, basically top tier Chinese Round at 11.0.
Type-90 also sits at 0.6 br above than Chally DS which reloads much faster,has much better mobility,armor and penetration.
Both Challenger 2 and DS has same engine and weight which means both tank has same mobility.
Seems like you’re the one who has no idea what he’s talking about.
I used your service record to calculate your results, feel free to check yourself.
no you just cant understand what i said.
The challanger 2 is slower at top tier compared to the counterparts.
oppose to the challanger 1 which last i used it before the BR changes, was keeping better with the tanks at its BR.
The challanger 2 also loses so much speed in its turns.
i have hundreds of games in teh challanger 2s mate.
there are many who believe the Type 90s are under BRd/ over performing incredibly in a downtier. the L26 is also near on par with JM33 btw with 10 less flat pen and 6 less angle pen at 60 degrees.
arguably one of the worst top tier rounds. meanwhile the challanger 2 is up against the likes of DM53, m338, m829a2 (more regularly).
coming from the one who
A. compared said the challanger 2 was in desert storm
B. Claims that what i said about the challangers armour is i quote “That is straight up bullshit” when all i said was that it allowed the full crew to survive a direct hit from a kornet missile. non of which is bullshit.
and no, its not just wet stoage at all, the charges themselves are in fire resistant sleeves, while also within a wet stoage, that has also a fire proof lining. to prevent ammo detonation, its not just a wet stoage at all, to boot its also on what documents that can be found a well armoured stoage.
again thats why the kornet missile didnt blow the tank to pieces and how the crew survived.
@Panther2995 this is also incredibly off topic for the thread as its about the Abrams and its buff, not a debate on what one is better armoured IRL. both in game are missing a lot of features. period. id just rather see the minor nations get brought up to the state of the major nations.
Not true at all, no one knows the exact thiccness of an non-export Abrams. Because the home grown/used Abrams dont use the export armor packages. Realistically the only Abrams with known hull/turret armor thiccness would be the M1A1 AIM and even that probably isnt right since I do believe the Aussies’ changed the armor.