Is it too much to ask to fix US Ground top tier?

[ileaveuptiers]

@Italy_Suffers

The game doesnt balance BRs by time frame, it balances them by capability. So the USA even if you think its top in everything (It isn’t until you get to specific time frames and even then they lose in tanks and helis at that point lol, even realistically they are not superior here) would still be finely balanced until you get to the point where USA has more shit to add and others dont.

Ah I meant post Vietnam era. The US wasn’t really known for being great at anything equipment wise

[Normandy_Corsair]

You still can’t blindly point to combat records.

[Necrons31467]

Increased vehicle weight =/= 2.5x higher load stress when firing.

You’ve also not addressed one of my arguments, so I’ll repeat it:

@Necrons31467

Furthermore, changes listed are the deletion of the hull blow-off panels to increase structural strenght. There’s no indication that the hull blow-off panels on the M1A2 were deleted, nor are any of the other listed changes in the CATTB stated to have carried over to the M1A2.

[Dinfire]

@ileaveuptiers

Yes the guns were different and the CATTB program was meant to test a lightweight 140mm cannon. I know I am not going to explain this well but I’ll try. Let’s just imagine that the xm291 turret weighs a total of 10 tons and the m256 turret (m1) also weighs 10 tons. You fire both and they exert a measurable amount of kinetic energy which can be measured in both directions. (shell exiting cannon, and recoil from the shot) The 140mm version exerts more kinetic energy and causes damage to the hull from stress and deformation and the 120mm version does not. Now add 5 tons of weight to the 120mm version, what happens when the same exact gun is fired without making the hull more rigid? The turret is going to exert more kinetic energy from the recoil into a hull that is not meant to handle the extra weight. I tried to explain it as best I can, I asked the same question in AI and here’s that result.

Seems you’re pretty well read on the CATTB program, better than I.

Problem. CATTB was implemented in the mid-90s, and the chassis underwent multiple revisions and yes, reinforcement. The suspension alone was redone 7 times.

Were M1A1s upgraded? Absolutely those that could were. Particularly when upgraded to M1A2 standards.

The question of hull armor won’t be answered for at least another 40 years unless we get a unlucky leak which I don’t suspect will happen.

The weight of the turret recoiling from a 140 versus a 120 is valid, but if they then discovered how to reinforce the chassis to carry more armor and the turret could boast thicker/heavier layers of composite and DU screens, that explains the upgrades to the suspension, alongside the APU and other grubbins introduced.

Most forget that M1s and M1A1s had one battery pack of six batteries before the M1A2 SEPSv1 introed the double banks for greater electrical output to offset the newer digital models’ drain.

[Dinfire]

@Italy_Suffers

I’m gonna say it again, USA is biased in air to the point them being bad in some areas in ground is counter-weight to that at this point.

As USA vs. Itself in air, maybe Ground RB should put Germany and Sweden and USA against each other like they do USSR.

[ileaveuptiers]

@Necrons31467

Furthermore, changes listed are the deletion of the hull blow-off panels to increase structural strenght. There’s no indication that the hull blow-off panels on the M1A2 were deleted, nor are any of the other listed changes in the CATTB stated to have carried over to the M1A2.

That doesn’t mean they didn’t reinforce other areas to compensate as the blow-off panels are most likely a requirement for combat vehicles. In addition to deleting the blow out panels, they extended the hull casting and modified the rear bulkhead to fit the autoloader.

[Normandy_Corsair]

reason usa vs usa in air is because 90% of the player population plays USA air. You read that right, 1 nation makes up 90% of the playerbase in air.

[ileaveuptiers]

@Dinfire

The question of hull armor won’t be answered for at least another 40 years unless we get a unlucky leak which I don’t suspect will happen.

Agreed, the point I’m trying to make to Necron is that it’s very likely that the M1 hulls were modified to some degree. We can assume that it was made to be more rigid. It’s a possibility the hull armor was increased as well. Necron swears that the measurements taken by Gaijin and from the CAATB program are true for every Abrams to current time.

[ileaveuptiers]

I’d like to see more of US vs US in game as well. It gets tiring playing against mostly Russia or Germany

[Dinfire]

@ileaveuptiers

Agreed, the point I’m trying to make to Necron is that it’s very likely that the M1 hulls were modified to some degree. We can assume that it was made to be more rigid. It’s a possibility the hull armor was increased as well. Necron swears that the measurements taken by Gaijin and from the CAATB program are true for every Abrams to current time.

Fair.

And it’s not even a very likely, it’s a known fact. Look up Congressional budget expenditures on M1 hulls throughout the 90s and 2000s.

Only reason we can’t get Gaijin to permit thicker armor is because no one except Lima knows precisely the make-up of the internals, and nobody would tell those unless they want a prison sentence.

Edit: To wit, Necrons is incorrect in his assertions that all hulls remained precisely the same.

[Dinfire]

@Italy_Suffers

reason usa vs usa in air is because 90% of the player population plays USA air. You read that right, 1 nation makes up 90% of the playerbase in air.

Why doesn’t 90% of the playerbase do so for Germany and Sweden in Ground?

[Normandy_Corsair]

I can’t tell you why 90% of the air playerbase chooses to play USA only.

[MechaZelis]

Probably because each nation is varied and interesting enough, while also being strong enough to compete with Swedish handholding. Nothing competes with America at top tier air besides maybe Japan with their F-15(M).

Less generously, it might be because for the average 0.6-0.7kd monkey, it doesn’t matter what nation they choose to play; they will always be trash.

[ileaveuptiers]

It’s tough when you have a huge player base using premium tanks with a glaring fault in the armor to have a good k/d ratio. Most people who have experience with this game picked US as their first nation and they’re on their 2nd or 3rd nation. More than likely they picked a nation with a meta tank such as Sweden or Germany and just play that all day. So you have a buncha new players using a tank with broken armor vs veterans with the best armor playing vs eachother. If the armor of the M1 was fixed, the good US players would have some cannon fodder that could last for more than one shot take up some of the slack.

[Necrons31467]

@ileaveuptiers

That doesn’t mean they didn’t reinforce other areas to compensate as the blow-off panels are most likely a requirement for combat vehicles.

‘‘Maybe this, maybe that.’’ and no actual proof being provided for anything.

This isn’t going anywhere particularly productive, it’s fine if you want to speculate on if’s and maybe’s, but I’m not getting much out of it.

I’ll leave it here.

[MechaZelis]

Every nation has these issues now, except france, thanks to gaijin pushing the 11.X premium shit. It’s not a crutch for poor individual performance.

[ileaveuptiers]

That’s the problem with you, I claim something is fact by showing you non-direct evidence and I’m wrong. I make hypothetical guesses with sound reasoning behind it and I’m wrong. So go on and live your life without thinking for yourself but being spoon-fed the information you’re allowed to think.

[Normandy_Corsair]

Not every nation has an equal amount of it.

[ileaveuptiers]

It’s more apparent in US since that’s the introduction to the game to many new players. I’m certainly not denying it happens with other nations as well.

[MechaZelis]

@ileaveuptiers

I claim something is fact by showing you non-direct evidence

I mean, that is very flimsy evidence to stand on. ‘Hypothetical guesses with sound reasoning’ is also very fucking flimsy. Anyone who’s taken a college-level debate class knows how to destroy this kind of argumentation.