Are you literally not doing the same thing when are you going to accept the abrams is a good tank ingame, currently you unironically believe its worse than the challenger and ariete
1 Like
I only bought the M1 KVT out of curiosity (since people claimed US sucked)
So far im quite happy with it, the main problem that i find is the teams and maybe the M774 105mm round (me no likey).
Far as i know this site’s data is from 2018, never been updated since. If its something up to date i need a link :)
Red Alert 1 and Red Alert 2 by Westwood lol USA vehicles also sucks there, no armor + weak firepower, but they have more speed though.
All of he good tourney players are european or oceanic
2 Likes
Thats the only issue you’ll get when playing the US they have really good vehicles besides the m60s but the teams suck its like they get forcefully lobotomised before playing their vehicles
6 Likes
Hey hey hey be careful bro you gonna get hit by the US main hive mind wrath.
3 Likes
10.3 abrams is the best of its br
1 Like
We know for a fact that it doesn’t have a spall liner. We know for a fact that the turret armour is pretty close to reality short of making up armour that doesn’t exist, or coming across exact metrics for composite effectiveness. Repeating it as a Mantra doesn’t make it true.
The Brits have been provided with no particularly good premiums, America got a Premium that is essentially an F16A with negligibly worse performance, and then bitch because “We wanted it to tech tree” when for once Gaijin makes a glorified prototype a premium. Compare this to France, where every good midtier light tank came in as an event vehicle so we can’t even get it if we’re missing it because event lock.
The Challenger is still utterly wrong and the only reason it got any attention is due to Gaijin selling a premium Chally that caused internal debate about the ethics of it. The Challenger is fixed in the same way installing a swinging door in place of garage door fixes a garage. The Abrams did not cause internal debates about ethics, as it is arguably the best option in game outside of Russia or China. Sweden and Germany are not catered to. If they were, we’d have our stuff actually accurate, instead of nerfed into the ground because Americans are too stupid to use their kit effectively. Especially not when we provide plenty of information from reliable sources and get rejected. Unlike Americans who make shit up and it gets accepted, whether it is about their own kit or about others.
In short, your victim complex is irritating because it is one without a basis in reality. The Abrams is far more accurate than anything outside of the Russian tree, and that’s only because we’ve pulled apart Russian equipment.
Oh, and to demonstrate the handholding the yanks get from Gaijin particularly clearly: F15 should be locked at a G limit of 9 when laden with weapons, according to Gaijin’s own rules. The F16a should be only slightly better than Gripen, but it is not because Americans keep making up documents to prove their stuff is magically better than literally all sources state. Oh and let’s not forget you got your reload buff to the Abrams from a Leclerc bug report that didn’t even go on to help Leclerc.
4 Likes
This is some questionable history right here, the M1 has fought enemy tank forces and come out on top quite handily.
Battle of 73 Easting ring a bell? It should, considering it’s basically the last large tank battle in history. Come up with all the cope you like, the fact at the end of the day will remain that IRL the M1 is the best tank for the US armed forces at the time. The US has had ample opportunity to purchase licenses for production of other MBTs if they are so much better than the M1.
Is it “better” than other tanks? In some ways yes; and in some ways no. Should it be better in-game? In some ways yes; and in some ways no.
A T-90M was destroyed by a weapon developed in 1948. Land mines developed around the sixties still prove lethal to even the “invincible” Strv 122 in reality. All tanks suffer from their inherent vulnerabilities. You underrate the M1 and overrate other vehicles.
Spoken like neophye with zero information on how military procurement functions and even less info on why things cost less for consumers and more for governments.
Did you know that modern consumers are free to purchase products from anywhere in the world and this hyper competitive market forces prices down to the absolute minimum?
3 Likes
Yeah sure, I’ll bet you’re a real Rockefeller when comes to the market, bruv.
The fact remains that armies and consumer markets don’t really overlap, especially when armies are looking to purchase domestic products above all else.
You can go buy some cheap shirts made in some sweatshop in southeast asia for a tenth the price an army pays for a cheap shirt made by domestic businesses.
But you aren’t worried about supplies of that shirt stopping suddenly because of geopolitics, or somebody sabotaging your forces because the shirts were woven with threads coated in powder that causes intense skin irritation.
2 Likes
Woah woah woah…
I just got around to this. Don’t blame Europe for Russia’s problem. It’s one nation here that’s the issue, not the whole continent.
I think that most of the losses are actually attributed to friendly fire. Like the Bradley lol.
1 Like
11.0 would like to talk
The only comment I have to make is that 73 Easting wasn’t much of a battle. It was more of a slaughter of unprepared Iraqis.
Were yanks getting their hands held when M735 was falsely nerfed.
1 Like
Yeah, they made it worse lmao
1 Like
This is what they do. Then get on alt accounts and flag again. Censorship is garbage!
Those too.
1 Like
Considering that during the First Gulf War the A-10s loved doing friendly fire and using the “the visibility was s***” excuse to prove that they were unable to follow a mission and to distinguish a NATO tank from a Warsaw Pact tank,yes i think most of the losses can also be attributed to friendly fire. Overall,i think that 1-2% of the overall losses of the Abrams from 1980 are from tank-on-tank combat