This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
Well, might as well link this to contribute.
1 Like
So you ignore the well founded arguments presented in this thread? Good stuff. Totally productive discourse.
11 Likes
The problem with these developers is that if there isn’t extremely accurate data (practically confidential information) they prefer to leave things as they are instead of using logic. That’s why the Abrams has the same armor on the 1987 model as the 2015 one, or the Merkava has armor made from toilet paper. On the other hand, the Relikt has a resistance of 250mm because a drunk said so one day.
1 Like
the DU part is and it was often discussed in other forums(on the m1a1) so there is a cope level in it…
Theres tons of other bugs with other nations. like japan’s type 10’s being a massive bug report since release
some leopards not getting its spall liners etc
they mention fixing 1000 bugs per update, but how many of these are actual problems and not minor things that change nothing
8 Likes
It’s strange how few bugs they fix, considering that the revenue they earn from microtransactions is easily enough to hire more developers and fix bugs faster. Also, I agree with you on the Type 10. It’s insane how easy it is to one-tap Japanese MBTs, and while I get that they have a killer autoloader, and it could be argued that weakening its armor is for balancing, the Type 10 is still unbelievably easy to kill. A vehicle that I think has been screwed even more than the Type 90/10/TK-X is the C1 Ariete. Despite weighing as much as pretty much every other MBT, it has the armor of an IFV. Sometimes I wonder why Gaijin does the things they do.
I’ll just say, I like that people are still trying to get the issues with the Abrams fixed (issues that are ahistorical, not the first time they (Gaijin) do something like this) though calling “underperforming” when its probably my most well played MBT in game, considering I grinded Russian, Japan and played some other high BR MBTs including the Leo 2A4 and whatnot, the Abrams is not underperforming at all, the only exception would be the base M1 Abrams, but thats mostly its gun issues (M774 is very weak in game), the base M1A1 is pretty balanced, the M1A1 AIM is pretty powerful as is, the M1A1 HC is a complete monster, so is the M1A2, not fully sure about the Sep variants, but I imagine they are somewhat better than the base M1A2, the 120mm APFSDS is pretty good for what it is, probably one of the highest pen’s, enough to essentially quickly 1 tap T-90s and T-80s with ease.
To put it in simple terms, no, the Abrams isn’t underperforming, its merely not full historically accurate, if its this good, imagine a historical Abrams.
PS: America isn’t the only nation missing tons of stuff, just ask the Japanese, ask the French.
Pretty much everything quoted as a source for the armour performance is noncredible and has been discredited…
Tanks by Michael Haskew, printed 2019.
Case in point.
Sure, as long as they implement overmatch that would make the Abrams ufp be defeated by everything newer than Mango
It already is. Just aim for weakpoints. The Abrams gets incredible advantages in return for its shortcomings. Making it be able to pen a T-90M frontally would just make a total imbalance at top tier.
1 Like
Claim your here before it gets hidden by mods pass
3 Likes
Or post hidden by bootyblasted freeaboos brigading responses. Kinda wish mods actually enforced rules that say “keep it to one thread”.
1 Like
How?
APFSDS penetrators are only on the order of 20~30mm in diameter, if you include the revised Fuel Cell bulkhead the majority of the Upper plate is at least +50mm of RHAe [63.5mm(38.1+25.4)] .
The bigger the shell, the more effective overmatch is. Shells with sufficient penetration that are greater than 7 x bigger in diameter than the armour thickness will ignore ricochet chance and angle of attack, acting as if the shell is impacting a flat plate.
and so to even get to the beginning of overmatch angular bonuses you would need the penetrator to be 49.4~82mm in diameter.
1 Like
that is such a massive misenterpretation lmao, thats not what happened, its not that the sources are non credibly(there is certainly a degree of noncredibility) its that gaijin doesnt accept said sources. gaijin’s standards arent what decides “credibility”
1 Like
based on what?
Hidden now :(
1 Like
I’ll just say, I like that people are still trying to get the issues with the Abrams fixed (issues that are ahistorical, not the first time they (Gaijin) do something like this) though calling “underperforming” when its probably my most well played MBT in game
I completely understand that it can be a good tank—I regularly get good games in the vehicle. What I mean by underperforming is that it is far weaker than its real-life equivalent. It’s also “underperforming” because it is extremely vulnerable frontally despite having armor capable of stopping most APFSDS across 90% area, and has armor packages inferior to the equivalent German, Swedish, and Russian tanks.
the base M1A1 is pretty balanced, the M1A1 AIM is pretty powerful as is, the M1A1 HC is a complete monster, so is the M1A2, not fully sure about the Sep variants, but I imagine they are somewhat better than the base M1A2, the 120mm APFSDS is pretty good for what it is, probably one of the highest pen’s, enough to essentially quickly 1 tap T-90s and T-80s with ease
It still cannot penetrate the T-90M or T-80BVM in the upper glacis or turret cheeks, yet the Abrams is only invulnerable in the turret cheeks despite being significantly larger and heavier, making it an easier target. When I have to aim for their tiny LFP and the Russian main can hit me anywhere other than the turret cheeks, it makes it artificially easier for them than it is for an American main. The SEP variants are also modeled to be WORSE than the base M1A2 for their BR, given that the only changes are weight increases and moderate thermal improvements.
To put it in simple terms, no, the Abrams isn’t underperforming, its merely not full historically accurate, if its this good, imagine a historical Abrams.
It is definitely underperforming, especially when it is as large as a barn, as loud as a jet taking off, and still has less armor protection than the Leopard 2. If American vehicles received the same benefit-of-the-doubt treatment that Russian vehicles get, the Abrams would be entirely invulnerable to the front, with a SEPv3 being added long before any other nation received their newest gear.
PS: America isn’t the only nation missing tons of stuff, just ask the Japanese, ask the French.
Did you read the post or just skim it? I acknowledged that multiple times—just because I’m arguing that one nation is being nerfed is irrelevant to the idea that it could be happening elsewhere. I’m not going to argue on behalf of Italian, Japanese, French, or Israeli mains, as I do not play those nations. I am arguing that the Abrams is underperforming because, as an American main, it feels annoying to be lol-penned by a Russian or German MBT since my only good armor is in the turret, all while my 120mm APFSDS can be stopped by the T-90M’s side armor and Relict bags due to volumetric fuckery and Gaijin’s innate desire to take any Russian armor claims at face value. Unlike the Russians and Germans, US mains are not nearly as handheld, and must have some degree of skill and maneuvering acumen to win due to the tank’s relatively weak armor by comparison. Also, to reiterate, I pointed out several times that other nations were being nerfed and gave multiple examples, specifically from the two you named.
The Abrams is a good tank. It has the second best shell in game and a 5s reload. ZTZ99A has everything worse except for a little bit of extra mobility, which really is not that useful.