Same as most these people tbh man.
As the old saying goes, “a good workman doesn’t blame his tools”
They just want the abrams to be literally invisible, if they didnt throw it into positions it shouldn’t be in they wouldn’t be complaining as much.
Hell even stock the m1a2 has m829 which is a fantastic stock round nearly on par with some nations top round.
Theyre all designed to face against T series tanks because all these were designed still either around the cold war or just after it.
The cr2 for example is designed to be able.to go head to head with any tank of its time.
The leclerc in real life is an absolute monster of an mbt as well, not as it is in game, it has a far faster reload, better round and last i checked the more modern iterations are extremely well protected.
The ariete unfortunately just isnt the best mbt out there, but isnt paper mache like in wt either.
Tell.me where you pulled this from?
The abrams literally has a massive flat part of the hull at the front ?
The T series tanks are following a design doctrine from literally 1960 when the t64 was designed (then the t72)
When composite armour wasnt as reliable as.it is.now, meaning the slope was more required to allow more armour, and more importantly as was the doctrin make tbe profile of the tank smaller.
Don’t see how GB being a less played nation changes the characteristics of the vehicles themselves, the point I was trying to make is that it definitely isn’t the vehicles because if it was, then the WR of other nations that have pretty much universally worse lineups and individual vehicles, like GB, would be worse.
It’s the volume of premiums and the playerbase that brings.
Edit: besides, it’s not like the US doesn’t have the best fighter tree in the game as a means to make up for it’s only weakness, having 1, subpar spaa.
You quoted me telling you that win rate is determined by player skill, then saying:
Implying you believe it is a null point and win rate is not determined by player skill. So I explained to you why it is.
I see that as perfectly rational, if you do not than maybe constructive discussion isn’t for you.
More ‘Other nations are treated better’ may I show you to OFL 120 F1?
L27A1, Dm53 is also an old round for the leopard 2 as well is it not? the age of the ammo is irrelavant if it performs well.
only partially
SLAAMRAM would literally ruin the game.
We need a full overhaul before touching all this modern tech, look how nerfed brimstones were on introduction.
no, mostly
hence why minor nations tend to have higher winrate
not really, you can just give it 9Ms and the AMRAAM
then its not an accurate vehicle.
They said US has old ammo and other nations get their newest ammo, not relevant.
9Ms are compatible with the system, surely?
how is it not relevant how said ammo performs ?
you cant cherry pick statements mate xD , oh look the cheiftain is missing most its ammos?
then we have the brimstone situation again, why add it if its missinghalf its capabilities
its just using a different missile? They can change it or add the 9X variant later
They said the US gets old ammo whilst other nations get new ammo. I said they’re wrong. What is so hard to understand?
are you thinking im disagreeing with you? go back and read the first comment i replied to you. its further showing other nations are using old rounds as well.
You’re the one who called it cherry picking, and yet, here you are
yes you said its not relevant information, where in reality it is very relevant isnt it.
backing up your claim with more rounds that are old and still used in game xD or do you only want to mention the leclerc?.