You’ve just spent god knows how long grinding your desired TT, you’ve finally gotten to top tier. Maybe you want said top tier tank and it’s awful. You struggle like hell.
And instead of getting buffs for it, or bug fixes or even just a BR drop. Everyone tells you to give up and play something else instead. If a tank, aircraft, ship or even entire TT is so bad that the default is “play something else” then surely that means something needs fixing.
Now top tier is compressed to hell at the moment. For me it’s the challenger 2 and it barely deserves to be 11.3 currently and fighting 11.7s like the 2A7V and BVM feels like I’m fighting 12.3s or even 12.7s and not 11.7s.
Yes, I don’t like Toptier. And yes, I’m not good at it, partly.
Nevertheless, in my eyes it makes no sense to go into battle with these vehicles over and over again and expect a different result.
When I realised that I was only losing with certain vehicles, I first shifted down a gear and looked at what the problem was. Then I went back later and got better.
But from what I hear and see, Toptier is hell. Battles that are characterised by ODL. Almost every battle landslide defeats or victories. Cheaters, and apparently there are quite a few of them, or the ones that are there hardly have to fear any consequences.
Why do you do this to yourself? Just because you’ve “fought your way up” to that point?
Gaijin has no ambition to change anything as long as the waiting times are short and everyone plays diligently.
I don’t want to deny that something has to be done. But it would be a much clearer signal from the players if they really said NO to it.
If the Abrams is on par with all other top tier tanks, why is their survivability and win rate so bad? Even after all the artificial buffs and hand holding they have received, it still hasn’t made a dent on their WR.
The Leopard 2A7 is probably the most gimped tanks in the game, and Germany only has one (1) decently armored top tier tank and still manages to stay on top despite being severely crippled.
In my opinion boils down to low skilled players, no offense. I’ve seen what good USA mains can do, and they can certainly dominate in a match, it’s just that the players are bad most of the time.
If Gaijin made maps designed for actual NATO tank tactics, we would see a massive uptick in the winrate of NATO and USA teams since Russian tanks perform better as offensive tools due to their heavy armor, which favors the CQC madness that is top tier.
Leopard 2A7V is “the most gimped tank” because it has 670mm KE instead of 750mm KE (granted it shouldn’t be the case, but anyway), and the Abrams with 350mm KE hull from 1979, 600mm KE turret from the non-DU 1991 Swedish trials export variant, missing bulkhead and UFP armor reinforcements and huge 50mm thick giraffe neck is “artificially buffed and handheld”…?
Like, you actually, genuinely said that Leopard 2A7V is worse than the Abrams… and that it’s a player issue?
If that was the case, how would you explain that my performance on Leopard 2A7V is LIGHT YEARS ahead of my performance with the Abrams? I am no main; I am the exact same person, except playing these two different tanks…
So: if the Abrams was better than the Leopard 2A7V… how come my statistics don’t reflect that? I am somehow better with a worse tank, and worse with the better tank…?
I wish I had a US line up since I come from an outside perspective, but I won’t spend another 1000 hours to be massively disappointed, but seeing some gameplay of it, it doesn’t differ that much from the Leopard, it’d argue that it even better due to its 5-second reload. So I just can’t wrap my ahead around it, how does an above average tank “suffer” so much?
Another reason I’d love to point out is the mechanisms of War Thunder don’t allow for armor of the Abrams to mean much due to the fact that we aim down the breach of our barrels, which makes aiming weak spots at close range extremely easy. Even if the Abrams had spall liners and DU inserts in its lower hull, it would be a simple matter of aiming its turret ring and killing it, like most experienced players already do.
If you ever played GHPC you’d realize how strong the Abrams is when you are not aiming down the breach, it takes a lot of effort to aim and turret neck shots are tricky to pull off, because IRL trap shots and neck shots are extremely rare, that’s why the Abrams turret ring is exposed since the probability of getting hit there is almost none.
Yeah, don’t do it… I guarantee you you would be indeed disappointed.
Oh, but that goes for all NATO tanks! They all play mostly the same.
Because it’s got one of the worst armors and survivability in Top Tier, being only better than Ariete’s and, partially, Leclercs and Merkavas. Every other tank besides those has better armor and/or survivability than the Abrams tanks.
Precisely. Aiming at weakspots is already easy, and not only does the Abrams have ENORMOUS weakspots, but also, it doesn’t really have any strong spots beyond the turret cheeks. Meanwhile, tanks like T-80BVM, the 122s or 2A7V have incredibly strong armor with only a few, small weakspots.
I think the way he’s thinking about it is that the average for top tier is the Leopards and T-series tanks, due to being “meta,” and the Abrams, in this sense, falls short of its counterparts due to easier one-shot potential and the difficulties it has playing against those that can easily kill it.
That being said, I haven’t played top tier America for a while, but that’s how it was last I played it a few months ago, and I don’t think anything significant has changed since then.
Yeah I see that. That’s more of a consequence of War Thunder being an “arcadey-realism” game. Being able to aim straight down the barrel is honestly something that probably shouldn’t be in the “realistic” mode but it has been for so long that I doubt that would change. I know a lot of people (including myself, admittedly) would not be happy with such a change, even if it was “realistic.” But it is in the game and so we have to account for it, and the mere presence of such an easy aiming system, particularly at top tier where everything is highly accurate and has little to no spread, means that any weakspots are drastically easier to hit; the Abrams, in comparison to some of the other tanks, has huge weakspots - namely the turret ring like you mentioned, but also the UFP since it is never at a sufficient range to actually have the UFP do the intended shell bounce. Even if it was, the high angle of it means that slightly off degree UFP is just a “straight pen” for the higher power APFSDS shells it faces. Combine that with the aloof representation of its actual armor and you get an, in all honesty, an unfun experience, since you have to aim for smaller weakspots than your opponents do, and thus have a harder time getting through their armor.
What happened to your reading comprehension?
almost none of what you wrote here was an answer to anything he wrote or its claiming he wrote something he didn’t.
i’m struggling to see how you got to these conclusions from what he wrote, like even a little.
the only thing you wrote that was even remotely in response to what was actually said is “BVM’s breach is tiny dude, it’s smaller than the Abrams breach”, the rest is just so far removed from reality that it can’t in good faith be interpreted as anything other than purposefully trolling. Jesus.
And don’t just go “you are mean, i won’t answer to you” because that will just further prove my point.
Ya, even if the representation of the armor were accurate the turret ring weak spot will still carry over to the game and couple it with the fact that aiming is easy it would still not have much of an effect in terms of surviving at close range. It could do it at longer ranges, sure, but I think that’s an issue of maps being too small to reflect actual combat ranges at which the armor of the Abrams would be most effective.
I don’t about that, in my own experience, the UFP isn’t as strong as the Strvs, M1s and T80s, the Leos beak armor has armor holes below the gunner sight and the recent nerfs made the LFP spall more apparently (I haven’t played the game in a while), also the Leo 2A7 has an exposed turret ring like the Abrams so it’s also prone to getting one shot that way, but that’s a whole other issue on how they butchered the model.
I don’t remember my stats in the Leo 2A7, but I think they are similar to yours. Most of the performance comes from the upgraded thermals and the slightly better armor, but I wouldn’t count on it.
at AA duties, ITO is better than ADATS, that’s undeniable.
As for self defense against tanks, yeah ITO is dead in the water. One trick ITO has is spotting. The radar is so high that spotting in this vehicle can be very effective
I’m struggling to see how he’s played more than me 18k battles vs 15k and has these stupid takes…Guy must play like a bot, is a bot, or bought the account.
I started logging my 11.3 CR2 games to have a visual on team compositions and this is what I have so far.
Please be aware I don’t play 11.3 often or alot nor do I wish to suffer needlessly by playing 11.3 Britain. So this is only compiled slowly when I do feel like having a bad time.
This isn’t totally accurate to my CR2 stats as I only recently started doing this, way after I got and played the CR2s. I do generally first spawn the base CR2 first.
Except this is BS since a) UFP usually shatters or leads to ricochets that don’t pen and b) if I shoot with anything else other than the Japanese I can shoot again (for example shoot cannon/breech then driver) with the murican tanks and kill you.
