Ah, yes. Because, in a match, when a Leopard 2A7V dies, that means the entire team of 2A7HUs and full 122 lineups die and can no longer spawn. “Literally” the same tank, totally.
Apart from not being remotely close to 2A7HU, 2A7V, 122B+, 122B PLSS and 122A… it’s not better than most others.
It’s only inquestionabily better than the Arietes and the Merkava Mk.4s, and possibly the Leclerc as of now.
But all other tanks are comparable, with weaknesses compared to the Abrams tanks, but also with strengths.
The Type 10s for example, have an autoloaded full second faster reload and a hull capable of withstanding shells such as 3BM46, DM43, OFL F1, L27A1, and even 3BM60, and, at some angles, even larger shells; while the Abrams hull can’t even take 3BM42.
The turret is weaker? Yeah, but the hull is significantly stronger. So they even out. The Abrams is not better than the Type 10.
T-80BVM may have worse reverse speed, slower reload and worse gun depression, but the extreme diference in armor makes up for it.
Same goes for the Challenger 2s; they have worse mobility and gun handling, but they are coated in spall liners (even though they are still missing some) and they have actually functional armor in spite of the nerfs, at least better than the “armor” found in the Abrams. Challenger 2’s center of mass weakspot is smaller and not as lethal, and the hull can withstand, like Type 10, shells such as 3BM46, DM43 and even OFL F1 and 3BM60 at some ranges and angles, while, again, the Abrams can’t even take 3BM42.
So, again, a situation where the tank has both upsides and downsides.
That’s why the Abrams is not “superior” than these; it is comparable. Because just as you remember so easily the strengths of the Abrams compared to the other tanks, you must also remember the strengths of the other tanks compared to it.
And then there’s the tanks who have all strengths with no upsides beyond now reload, but that’s a different topic.
