playing usa I always wondered are abrams (top tier ground) good to play or its not worth it
1 Like
The best Abrams to play is 10.3 (M1) and 11.0 (M1IP/M1A1)
The higher you go - the worse teams you will face.
2 Likes
well, depends on your gamemode
in GRB - not really
in ARB - yes, one of best nations
in SB basicly same
2 Likes
Yes, M1A2.
Use the survivability onion for all tanks.
3 Likes
Looking at purely MBTs, they are behind Sweden and Germany by quite a bit, a little behind the soviets.
On a wider, more TT wide level, they have some pretty decent CAS, Helis and high tier IFVs. Lacking a decent top tier SPAA though and the Pantsir does mitigate the CAS advantage a fair bit.
Overall, they are around the 4th best nation in ground at the moment
Vehicles? Yes. Teammates… not so much.
lol They’re only behind Soviets in armor because of T-90M, they’re ahead of the Soviets in all other aspects.
Which is why I equalize T-90M with M1A2 SEP, and the first M1A2 with BVM.
I played M1A2 the same way meta players did in 2021 and got over 5 kills per match.
Abrams has always been an aggressive brawling tank, but people backed off doing that cause the people that did it moved to other tech trees.
i don’t think usa mbt are behind soviets, imo both are good but have a different playstyle. i personally prefer abram and hstvl its good lineup for top tier, i really hate t90m reverse speed and ussr gun depression.
yes soviet get the pantsir on the other hand usa had f16c. both are great nation to grind
This isn’t 2022 any more, the Soviet MBT’s are now average at best.
The T-90M was a straight downgrade from the T-80BVM and the T-80BVM is worse than the M1A2 SEP, nevermind the Leopard 2A7V, Strv 122’s or Leopard 2A7HU.
What makes Russia compete is everything aside from their MBT’s, when you look at the K/D and K/M ratios they are also near the bottom.
Winrate - K/D - K/M
Strv 122B+ --------- 61% – 3.0 – 3.5
Leopard 2A7HU –70% – 2.9 – 3.1
ZTZ-99A ------------- 60% – 2.8 – 2.8
Merkava Mk.4M - 64% – 2.7 – 3.5
Leopard 2A7V ---- 65% – 2.6 – 2.7
Leclerc --------------- 65% – 2.4 – 2.4
Type 10 -------------- 61% – 2.3 – 2.7
M1A2 SEP ---------- 43% – 2.1 – 2.4
T-80BVM ------------ 62% – 2.0 – 2.2
Challenger 2 OES 58% – 2.0 – 2.5
T-90M ----------------- 61% – 1.8 – 2.2
3 Likes
Generally no, not until a vast number of needed fixes are done to make it on par with the current 2A7s, 122B+, or T-90M.
1 Like
For planes? yes.
For tanks? hell no.
Just going to continue to clarify for anyone reading your replies that you don’t play even a single nation at high tier (let alone top tier) and thus are immensely unqualified to comment.
2 Likes
Just going to clarify for anyone reading your replies that you apparently can’t logically deduce that the Abrams isn’t good because it lacks sufficient armor, has multiple modeling errors (turret ring, fuel tanks, lack of spall liner, etc.), and it’s reload rate and mobility are not so overpowering that its weaknesses are counterbalanced.
A player that doesn’t have any knowledge about top-tier whatsoever overvalues the importance of armour.
Colour me surprised.
Also, it’s still got better armour than the majority of top-tier tanks, yet all of those perform better dispite their armour disadvantage relative to the M1’s. It’s almost as if the players are the main issue here.
The Leopard 2A7V has had some of the most numerous modelling errors, yet it was one of the best MBTs in the game regardless. So moot point.
The M1’s are also some of the most accurately modelled MBT’s in the game right now, so it’s especially daft to complain about this given what other nations are dealing with.
M1’s aren’t missing spall liners, that’s just purely your unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, someone never having played the tanks confidently claiming it’s attributes aren’t sufficient, based on absolutely nothing.
2 Likes
The Abrams is a strong tank, especially the M1A1 but also the M1A2, unfortunately American teams perform very poorly right now which makes playing them more frustrating. And when the game is more frustrating, at least personally, it gets harder to perform well.
Of the half of the top tiers tanks that have worse armor, the disparity for about half of them is only minor, and the other half essentially don’t have armor at all (Ariete, Merkava).
The 2A7V’s inaccuracies are things like increasing the hull from already impenetrable to even more impenetrable, for the Abrams it’s things that actually significantly help its survivability.
The M1 is missing its spall liners, they’re integrated. It’s also missing hull DU from the M1A1 HA onwards (testbeds since 1997, rolled out in full starting FY2004/2005), actual DU armor values, incorrect turret side armor, incorrect fuel tanks, incorrect turret ring size and thickness, incorrect hydraulics location, incorrect engine volume, and more that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
The 2A7V missing some essentially unneeded armor on the hull and roof is not much compared to that.
The differences are minute at best, which obviously do not outweigh the lack of armor. No one unironically thinks an Abrams is on par with a 2A7, 122B+, or T-90M.
Lol.
@Jεcka You should handle this one.
Just repeating your unsubstantiated fantasy over and over and over again doesn’t magically make it true.
Nobody claims the M1’s are on-par with the 2A7’s.
Similarly, the Type 10, Merkava, T-80, T-90, Leclerc, ZTZ-99, VT4A1, Challenger, etc. etc. aren’t on-par with the 2A7’s either, yet those are still capable enough to compete to varying degrees, dispite most of them being worse tanks than the M1A2 SEP.
Also, claiming the T-90M is on-par with a M1A2 SEP is a bad take at best, claiming it’s superior is plain delusional.
I’d like to say: Go play them yourself but then again, you can’t because you’ve got none of these tanks unlocked.
I also can’t help but be amused by the fact that you’re confidently making claims about what others think, dispite the fact that I’ve seen countless others here make fun of your opinions due to:
A) You’ve got no experience with any of the stuff you’re talking about.
B) They’re incredibly bad (and unsubstantiated) takes.
4 Likes
There’s nothing showing that what I’ve said regarding the Abrams’ armor is false.
Again, I’m not sure how it’s hard to conceptualize that armor matters. The difference in mobility, gun handling, etc. is virtually nothing next to having most of your frontal profile being impenetrable.
You’re downplaying the problems 2A7V is dealing with massively, but then again, you’re an M1 stan so I shouldn’t really be surprised, anyhow;
- hull armor as you’ve mentioned (raw protection, but also; modules are too small, which causes the damage model to go crazy and create new weakpoint [for example, the upper plate, which Gaijin managed to fix only by elevating the add-on damage model to sit above the physical model*])
- physical model itself (the neck guard’s DM and PM are both too small, exposing the turret ring in the process)
- turret ring is exposed (in reality it’s hidden behind and under armor)
- turret is hovering above the hull
- turret is lacking its bottom armor that’s meant to protect the turret ring
Spoiler
- turret front is roughly 50% weaker compared to the TVM max in terms of both KE and CE within the 60 degree arc (also frontally for CE).
- turret front (right cheek) has armor holes in and around the gunner optic, allowing even non-600mm projectiles to go thru (other Leopard 2s don’t have this problem)
- mantlet is underperforming by about 75% in terms of KE protection
- multi-hit capability of the turret add-ons is way too low (currently can be destroyed by just 1, at best 2, hits from CE warheads, the conflict in Ukraine has showed that they can take even Kornets to the face without failing like they do in WT)
- acceleration is currently too low (supposed to be as good as 2A4, but falls behind the 2A6 in WT)
- lacks spall liners in front of the loader
- spall liners have been nerfed to such a level that they basically don’t work anymore
- there’s a DM hole under the mantlet, allowing 7.92mm bullets to pass thru and kill the crew
- neck guard isn’t volumetric (so it offers next to no protection despite being some ~500mm LoS thick)
Just some of 2A7Vs issues off the top of my head (there’s more ofc, these are the only ones I can think of without consulting the list), there you go @Necrons31467
2 Likes
Here’s you pretending like asking people to prove a negative is a valid argument, but I can do that as well, observe:
‘‘There’s no sources that claim the composite armour of M1A2 SEP v3’s is not in fact filled with spaghetti, therefore it’s a fact and you can’t convince me otherwise until you show me a primary source documents that specifically say it’s not filled with spaghetti.’’
It does matter, which is why it’s nice that the M1A2’s at least have average armour instead of much worse armour like the Leclercs, Type 10, Merkava, Challenger 2’s and Ariete’s.
And I’d agree with what people such as Cavenub say: The reload rate buff was more significant than any armour buff would’ve been, the reload buff has kept it about as competitive as any other MBT that isn’t a 2A7/122.
I’ve already explained this to you, but given the fact that you’ve got no experience with anything at top-tier, it obviously doesn’t stick.
Also going to ignore your further comments because it’s just repeating the old stuff over and over again.
Get back to me when you’ve actually played these tanks.
2 Likes