They like to give the US 80s and 90s technology a little bit of early 2000s and say this is America’s best and greatest not one vehicle in the US tech tree was made past 2008 not one But we face other nations Newer technology you Literally have the IMP1 at 11.0 That’s late 70s early 80s technology facing mid to late 2000
1 Like
Yeah and this is why I take Necrons’ stuff with heavy grains of salt.
The T90M is one of the tankiest high tier tanks there are except for ‘leet’ twitch shooters aiming for LFP or driver’s hatch.
The reality is most players are not on that level of skill or even have the rig to run that. They do however have a rig that can see the turret ring on an Abrams with a snap.
1 Like
Also, the same armor package that’s on the Challenger chomb armor is the same armor On the Abrams meaning we have lining to protect from spalling
I don’t care, Russians get to have the Pantsir because that’s the doctrine they focused on while other nations have to deal with inadequate AA or flying fighters, it’s only fair the US also gets to have advantages specific to them
1 Like
At least try and disprove their claims instead of resorting to the clown emoji. It makes you look more like a clown than anyone else.
2 Likes
Why waste my time and attention? That’s what 🤡’s want. Won’t give it to them. And it’s impossible to prove anything to them, will find all kinds of excuses and delusions to disprove your points.
Yeah that’s how debating works. You each try and find ways to disprove the other’s points to eventually come to an agreement about something.
Leclerc is effectively the 11.0 M1A1 at a higher BR and has smart people.
M1A1 has the same mobility, 5.3 second reload, and a superior round.
But @Navy_Phantom 's posts won’t address that.
Also, Navy; Necrons is of sound mind and has well formed statements. They make far less typing mistakes than I do.
Their posts could be incorrect, and if they are you should:
Sorry how many of the others were in my thread saying I was bait? Try again Ion.
Asking for the IPM1 to go to 10.3 does indeed sound like bait, and it’s not like you were able to make comparisons with other 10.3 tanks to justify it too.
1 Like
No, it’s proof that your half of the forums can’t formulate more than crappy opinions, same as the guys who retort with a clown emoji. Address your own sarcasm levels before admonishing others.
Yet to see that part with those people who I put a clown emoji. It’s obvious why they’re here.
@Dinfire
The point behind my “Bait use to be believable.” was to reference the meme of the same name, as well as critique the post for sounding extremely ridiculous.
It was not directed toward you as a person, Dinfire; and if you did read it that way, I apologize for the only intent was to critique the argument.
1 Like
And again, M1A1 is larger, turret ring is bugged, louder engine noise, and all transmissions are eternally hampered.
And again, shall I reiterate my own stats to show win rates versus performance?
Considering that thread was locked without explanation, I wasn’t aware.
I appreciate your explanation.
That being said, I’m still testing the M1A1 and IPM1 at 11.0 as we speak.
I’ve unlocked a few modules on the IPM1. It’s decent ish. But nowhere near the same capabilites as the Leclerc or Type 90 in my opinion, yet.
It absolutely is too much to ask between Gaijin refusing to do their due diligence and the US haters derailing nearly every single thread they see that requests fix for US vehicles regardless of how much information is provided.
There’s quite literally no point to playing the US in regards to top tier. Gimped vehicles often fighting a mix of Russia, Germany and Sweden - Sometimes all 3 at once. It’s not worth the hassle.
1 Like
That tag I did not see, Ion, thank you.
My greatest complaint is the number of people who reiterate something to this effect:
“The added resistance to SPAA and other autocannons is nice, but all of those vehicles can still knock your barrel in a couple of rounds, and do the same to your tracks, completely nullifying you anyway. The point is that this change to the turret ring has no meaningful effect on the performance of the vehicle, or any of the (A)brams for that matter.”
No meaningful effect.
Yet we’ve never had it even tested the same as they have the APHE or research bonuses.
I postulate there’s a world of difference between keeping your crew alive from SPAA hitting your turret ring and being able to repair a knocked-out gun barrel, versus being insta-rofled with ha-ha-ha 30mm to weak point.
1 Like
M1A1 is not larger, the engine sound is actually slightly quieter.
And turret ring is bugged… the Lecerc’s hull is bugged.
Right now Leclerc and M1A1 have identical armor [Leclerc has less cause it doesn’t have the Abrams’ hull roof.]
So yeah.
If you’re going to cite team skill [win rate] again, then it’s not going to help you’re argument.
Preface: The following is not an insult of your performance, just a cold analysis.
Your KDR in Abrams seems on-par with everything but Leclerc and Type 10.
Your average is 1:1 across MBTs, with your Leclercs and Type 10 being the abnormality.
Might be wise to adopt whatever tactics you use in Leclerc for the other tanks you use.
Your KMR is… also averaged about the same, with Leclerc and Type 10 being the abnormality again.
So yeah, it appears you’re consistent in the tactics you use; and whatever tactics you’re using for Leclerc and Type 10 are different enough to cause an increased performance.
So according to that analysis, M1A1 and IPM1 are as-balanced as all the other MBTs you’ve played thus far.
And the performance difference in Leclerc and Type 10 can be explained with more effective tactics otherwise there’d be similar increases in performance for all objectively recent MBTs.
Here’s a compliment: Excellent consistency, sir.
2 Likes