Not even by a long shot.
It is tho. Leopards are Nr.1 Abrams is 2.
Ariete, ZTZs, Leclerc…do not even come close.
Leo 2 and T-80 are 1 and 2. Abrams is WAY down being only barely higher than the minor nation tanks (same minor nations that also get Leo 2s btw).
How is an Tank with worse pen, worse reload, worse gun depression, worse mobility with de facto no reverse, one less Crewmember and the single only saving grace being the ERA as Armour…better than an Abrams…?
Abrams is not WAY down. Abrams is WAY up.
US Mains just got the largest Skill Issue on Terra.
Lets not forget that when they added the M1A2T to China it had one of the best Stats of any MBT for a while which greatly exposed the US Skill Issue.
Still got like almost a whole 10% higher Winrate
Probably, Russian tanks are more forgiving for the “hold-W” crowd due to their small size and heavy front armour.
Also the auto loader negates part of the issue of noobs buying into top tier with no crew skills, while they still have slow repairs and turret traverse at least their reload is maxed out by default.
Other nations tanks can preform better than Russian ones, but they require more tactical gameplay, something the map design often doesn’t really allow.
The main issue though is the Russian CAS/SPAA combo that can just lock the map down.
better postpen + idk what a T-80 can’t pen that a Abams can.
only if the Abams is spaded and isn’t on fire and who’s loader isn’t dead.
They’re near indentical in forward, and the T-80 has the advantage when turning.
Not really an issue from my experience. Good reverse is nice but it’s not game changing.
That’s not a real argument. Crew count falls under a larger subset of tank characteristics, that being survivability. The T-80 if FAR more survivable than the Abams.
False, it has numerous advantages.
Tank Families (I.e not specific vehicles, so all top tier leopard 2s, not x specific leopard 2)
- Leopard 2 - second best fire power at top tier, fairly average mobility but best survivability
- Abrams - Best fire power at top tier (which is getting buffed next major), fairly average mobilty but okay survivability (getting better next major)
- Bit of a toss up actually, Probably the Type 10 thanks to its very fast reload and is fast, but has basically no survivability at all. Also has a very slow turret rotation speed
- T-series stuff - Annoying as hell in terms of actually killing them, but limitations in firepower and mobility
- Chinese tanks in around here as well, not bad not great either
- Merkava, frontally located engine means it can tank frontal hits okay, but a little lacking in other places
- Leclerc, perfeclty average tanks, not great at anything but not bad at anything either
- Last slot is a really a toss up between Ariete and Challenger 2 and honestly its a case of the map I think. Ariete is a glass canon, small and fast with half decent firepower but 0 survivability.
- Challenger 2s though are falling behind, even more with the upcoming nerfs. No meaningful survivability, though more than the Ariete, no mobility, weakest firepower at 12.7 and second weakest at 11.7+ (Challenger 3 has better firepower but gives up what little survivability the CR2s have). (The toss up with the Ariete is what is better, limited survivability or small and fast, that changes from map to map)
1 Like
I think Chinas MBTs, excluding the M1A2T, are among the worst.
You have the same flaws as T-Series Tanks but do not get the ERA Armour (at Side that is) as they do while also adding an NATO Hunch too it so now also can’t aim backwards…but none of the strength except the mobility…Gaijin also still refusing to give them Spall Liners for whatever reason…
Maybe, always considered them to be Soviet MBTs that lacked a bit of their survivability but get much better firepower and had okay mobility
I wouldn’t wall the Abrams “okay survivability” tbh. Tanks like the Type 10 or Chally can atleast take a shot to the track and not lose their transmission. The Abrams is only really viable if you’re a perfect player who can always perfectly disable their enemy before their enemy can shoot them. At that point, every advantage the Abrams has is held by the Type 10.
You are claiming the Type 10 or Challenger 2 have better survivability than the Abrams…
Like seriously? What game have you been playing?
Unless you somehow miss the comically large hull, turret ring, and breech weakspots, the Abrams 100% has worse survivability than a Type 10 and Chally.
Hu?
Challenger 2 is larger than the Abrams and if you hit anywhere that isnt the turret cheeks you will 1 shot it 100% of the time. Abrams get blow out panels and actual bits of armour
Type 10 I dont think even really has the Turret cheek protection.
Like seriously. Abrams is perfectly fine in survivabiltiy. Just US mains need invulnerability to do well
It has 2 small squares of armour that are decent enough to just barley stop a 3BM60, it wont stop a M829A2 or DM-53 though, at least not at under 2000m. the bigger issue is the massive gun mantlet that will not stop a 3BM22 at 1500
Type 10 also not only has the same turret weak spot as the Abrams, although the turret shape makes it less of a shot trap, it also has a 40mm LFP, it’s angled a little so its about 60mm in practice, but that’s still a tad worse than the 400m on the Abrams
1 Like
Right, the two paper thin armoured “tanks” are definitely more survivable than the Abrams. I’ll give you the reload on the Type 10, the Type 10 is definitely more FORGIVING than the Abrams, but that autoloader is a massive weakness as well. If you get tapped there, you’re quite useless for 30 seconds. The Challenger has no advantages over the Abrams beyond the fact that British players are far better than Americans. We’ll definitely see that when the Brits get the Commonwealth Abrams.