I was talking about Germany. Best case is tornado and kws. Our best AA the Flarakrad has good missiles but it’s outclassed by the pantsir. Our best light tank the puma has been nerfed into the ground and not given it’s missiles.
More pen is worse?
There’s a larger gap between the SEPv1’s mobility and the T-80BVM’s than the T-90M compared to the SEPv1, it has much better mobility. The only real downside is the reverse, which isn’t bad since it’s not 5 km/h.
The Abrams has much, much weaker armor in game (and is a lot larger).
2 Likes
“Chemical” pen is inferior to kinetic pen.
Also the screenshots prove Abrams and T-80BVM share armor similarities.
Depends on what you’re shooting at.
The T-80BVM having 40-50% less weakspot area =/= similar armor
Wake up War Thunder forums! It’s time for your hourly “America bad” post!
6 Likes
Is doesn’t really. The only thing the Abrams has that withstand kinetic threats is its turret cheeks, (and even then one side of the turret gets penned by DM53 consistently, which also conveniently happens to be the side the gunner and commander are situated behind)
The UFP doesn’t always bounce either.
Meanwhile the T-90/T-80 turret is impenetrable to any kinetic threat ingame (besides perhaps the LOSAT) and so is the UFP. Oh and don’t forget the T-series has a much much smaller profile.
2 Likes
There are 3 things at play:
1- The weakspot of Abrams turret is identical in total size as T-80BVM’s turret.
2- Abrams turret is larger which makes the weakspot look smaller when aiming.
3- When aiming at tanks all weakspots are relative to the size of the vehicle.
A vehicle of larger size with equally sized weakspots will be more difficult to hit than the smaller vehicle because of how size impacts our decision making.
AV-8B can launch missiles that can (theorically) engage from 40km away, (realistically) 20 km away? (still further than any SPAA besides Pantsir can engage)
1 Like
For God’s sake, fighting middle eastern turban Guerrilla doesn’t means you’re the greatest military in the world. Seeing, even though it’s not accurate, the US vehicles it’s so bad in War Thunder the basic US military doctrine is to bomb them over and over again and then the ground forces come just to take all the credit “We’ve destroyed them all!!!1!11 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅”.
If you don’t use the cancerous CAS US has in all BRs you can’t do shit apparently. By 6.7 and above US starts smashing everything either Air or Ground.
In Abrams you can pretty much forget about that LFP penetration, nothing happens if you shoot there: or the Gas tank eats all the spalling or the drive does the same or it just pass through just destroying the engine and the transmission.
Yes, AGM-65Gs have a 20km range and function identically to Su-25SM3’s missiles.
1 Like
That’s not very true mate. The weakspot size, and sometimes the speed of the tank, are all that matters. You could make a mile wide turret face with the same sized weakspot and I’d hit it just as easily. Perception isn’t everything.
And again, the hull is larger/less armored. Any kinetic threat you face at Top tier will just go clean through your hull 90% of the time (unless you get a lucky ricochet), and even god can’t save you if it goes through your turret ring (unless somehow you keep your mobility and breech and can turn your tank for a return shot).
1 Like
This is factually not true…
Just from the last couple of days:
I also included some UFP one-hit shots, since some people seem to believe that the UFP is immune or something xD
Hitting the hull of the Abrams is a guaranteed one-hit kill; and if you somehow don’t kill it in one shot, you will do on the second, after the first has destroyed its mobility and firepower (driver, engine, gunner, turret mechanism, elevation mechanism).
3 Likes
Last I checked the AGM-65G has less kinetic range than the 65D since its heavier.
That’s new to me, cool!
Only the third image as, seems to be, a LFP shot, the others was a angled shot or a ring shot, which most of the time is guaranteed kill.
Highlighted UFP;
Also UFP;
Angled shot;
Ring Shot;
And this one is a missile shot, not kinetic.
Again, I may be wrong because I did a quickly analysis of the images.
The angled shot still hits the glacis, not the side armor. Watch the impact zone; it goes through the glacis composite, then the fuel tank.
I added one more on an edit where it’s an even clearer LFP shot, but I will add it here in case it wasn’t seen:
In the thousands of matches across the Rank VIII MBTs of 8 nations, I can guarantee and assure that the Abrams has one of the worst hulls, only contested by the nerfed Leclerc.
3 Likes
The complaints I have for the US specifically:
- The Abrams DU armor/integrated spall liner conundrum.
- Lack of AGM-114L ‘Longbows’.
- Lack of second EFP for the TOW-2B.
- The AH-1Z utilizing older weaponry even though its newer than the AH-64.
- TUSK-II not removable from M1A2 SEPv2.
- Missing other round for HSTV-L.
- Missing 2nd-generation thermals for the Commander on the M1A1 AIM.
- Only top-SPAA is a TD and costs hefty SP.
There are many other issues I have here and there but I have these for every nation. I mean damn…look at the Ariete. The USA does have a lot of good things though too like superior CAS, best AA missiles, strong rounds, and good reloading. Granted this is also opinionated as well.
4 Likes
Wrong and wrong. He didn’t say the US is the most powerful military nation in the world because of them fighting in the middle east. He said it because they are responsible for more than half of the entire planets military spending i.e budget. Think about the for a second. One country is responsible for over HALF the ENTIRE PLANETS spending for military assets. Please.
The second area you are incorrect in is that the gas tank doesn’t stop any spalling. It literally CREATES it and it’s an absurd amount I might add and shouldn’t be the case yet here we are.
3 Likes
