Tusk doesn’t work nearly as well as it should work vs the weight and no option to remove it on the Sep v2
Don’t forget:
- Adding DU armor (the in-game Abrams are based on non-DU export versions)
- Adding spall liners to all Abrams (it’s integrated)
- Adding DU hulls to the M1A1 upwards (was tested on five hulls from at least 1997-March 2006, and then was rolled out in a new armor package in August 2006)
- Fixing the fuel bulkhead models
- Turret ring fix in more detail - Making it volumetric, making it the correct 250mm+ LoS thickness
- Lowering the turret down as it is overly exposed
- Adding the Improved Turret Side Armor
- Fixing the position of the hydraulics
There’s probably more, but that’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
18 Likes
I don’t have WT open, but doesn’t the current round have about 625mm pen @ 0 degrees?
Leclerc has like 575 and people do fine in that.
I think US teams lose a lot for mainly these reasons:
- Lots of new players choose US as their first TT
- Lots of US players want to play CAS so they immediately spawn Air as soon as they have the SP (handing over objective control)
- US TT has a lot of premiums which promote 1DL
9 Likes
100% agree the US tech tree is abysmal. They have tanks like IMP1 at 11.0 I mean a tank designed and built in the 80s in The golf war we didn’t even use them We used M1A1 They have no variance of any infantry fighting vehicles. Let’s take them to history class 73 Easting T72B3’s got shit on
4 Likes
i completely agree. I stopped researching the V2 as its just a slower more visible tank. I’ve been less frustrated playing 10.0 Soviet tanks than USA 10.0.
3 Likes
There’s no way Gaijin would sell their premiums and then prevent people from playing with them.
The only realistic solution is for Gaijin to push other nations’ high tier premiums harder with discounts.
Just as a word of caution, people tend to have unrealistic expectations about this one. Even if it were to be fixed, it’d still be totally vulnerable to all top-tier APFSDS.
What’s not working about it?
This is kinda silly.
The US M1’s currently have the second best firepower of any nation in the entire game, only beaten by the Type 10. It’d be extremely unfair to other nations which have worse MBT’s if these M1’s were given yet another buff that ultimately won’t change the fact that it’s poor playerbase is the main fault for it’s poor performance.
The SEP v3 should’ve been added instead of the SEP v2 9 months ago already.
The SEP v2 offers nothing new, whilst the SEP v3 offers actual armour improvements.
HIMARS & SPAA in a single sentence? HIMARS stands for: ‘‘High Mobility Artillery Rocket System’’.
If HIMARS is a SPAA, then the Katyusha is a WW2 SPAA.
3 Likes
Let me take a wild guess here: You don’t play any other tech trees than the US one, or at the very least you don’t play other nations past Rank V and thus have no basis for comparison. I’m also betting you’re not exactly the best player around and your stats will reflect that.
Every single time I see someone claiming the US tech tree is poor, the description I just gave is a 100% match. Will it be any different this time?
Just wait until you find out when the 11.3 T-80U was produced.
War Thunder matches vehicles based on capabilities, not year of introduction. The IPM1 is one of the best MBT’s relative to it’s BR across any nation.
If you want to advocate for historical-based matchmaking, prepare for the following:
- T-64A at a lower BR than the M60A1 AOS and at the same BR as the basic Leopard 1.
- T-80U at the same BR as a Leopard 1A5 and Leopard 2A4.
- Chieftain Mk.10 at the same BR as a M1A1 Abrams.
- M60A1 RISE (P) at the same BR as a Challenger Mk.3.
I can’t help but be amused when you’re proudly stating others should be informed about history, and then continue to claim the 2011- T-72B3 fought in the 1990-1991 Gulf War.
16 Likes
Yeah, even though Tusk 2’s ERA has been on a sale brochure, and has realistic numbers.
Wait, wait, wait, dude actually said that?
@NEVERAGAIN_FTH, jeez man, at least read a book.
The M1A1 Abram’s and M2/3 Bradly IFV’s were fighting early model T-72 A and B’s and Shilka’s IN A SANDSTORM if the enemies would have had thermal imagers, they would have absolutely WRECKED the US in the engagement.
1985 right?
8 Likes
While i question the TUSK underpreforming.
I would like to see your source of the values.
Question, have you ever seen any of these vehicles in action? OK shut up I have a big difference. I’ll keep my mouth shut from here.
JFC where are the values?
There are no values on that.
Okay know it all ^^”
Have you seen a T-72 A in combat?
Let alone know the FCS system and its capabilities
What difference, the fact that the T-72B3 was in the Desert Storm operation and battle of 73 easting…
The T-72B3 didn’t exist until 2010, 73 easting was in 91’
2 Likes
I’ve talked about it in another thread before, and I really don’t feel like taking the time to find it, but others can confirm that it is accurate in game.
Excuse me if I doubt.
It’s fine, it’s just the fact that TUSK was designed to deal with urban geruilla warfare where their main threat was enemy RPG teams. Mostly using outdated RPG-7’s.
1 Like
Let’s keep that topic out of the forums. I will say it is a quick way to shut down a topic.
1 Like
You realize that, 20 of the 31 Abram’s sent to the east war have been destroyed…
The Abram’s performs just fine, considering it was fighting tanks with laughably bad ability in comparison to it.
4 Likes
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s costing them so much just to destroy them not saying they’re indestructible. I’m big into this conflict. Trust me. It’s costing them an Extreme some of money Taking out these western tanks.