Yeah, the only advantage the T-series tanks have is small profiles and maybe forwards mobility, optics is a mixed bag, and the pen on their round is not ideal.
do not confuse armour with survivability. once you pen the T90M LFP it pops its top.
The Turret can also be scythed through with M829A2
This is just a lie, the abrams is far, far more mobile, mobility isnt just top speed, far better round and reload.
1 Like
In some things like reload time and penetration, they may be. In others, like protection against the best pen, or overall armor scheme, it’s just a cherry picked analysis.
this might help someone: I always thought that abrams’ breach was too easy to hit, but once I looked back, I realized I was just hitting the driver optics
In my opinion, the Top Abrams tanks, in general, do not have an ABSOLUTE, utterly cripling weakness/issue like other tanks do;
However, it has a significant plethora of smaller issues that, when they combine and add up, make the Abrams underwhelming, specially because these issues would not actually be a thing if the tanks were modelled with more care.
Since you guys quoted me, I will list them here;
1- Still missing a properly modelled volumetric turret ring.
2- Still missing proper fuel tank bulkhead plates’ thicknesses.
3- Still missing proper fuel tank bulkhead armor geometries/plates.
4- SEP and SEPv2 still missing the improved turret armor.
5- SEPv2 still unable to take off the dead weight called TUSK II.
6- M1A1 AIM still missing its historical KEW-A2 even though other Abrams tanks at the exact same BR use M829A2, which is even better.
7- M1A2 SEPv2 still missing its historical M829A3 shell for no particular reason even though Gaijin officially stated that it would still be balanced (at least that new shell would make it feel like an actual upgrade in ONE aspect…)
8- Misplacement of the hydraulic pump, making it an easier target than it should be.
Therefore, if these numerous issues were fixed, the Abrams would be significantly more effective and pleasant to play with.
2 Likes
Never said it was an Abrams, said it was a Russian Abrams. All things considered, it’s faster than the T-90M, and shares a competitive armor scheme.
And even if i lie, i’d be in the same level of dishonesty as you, not worse.
Excellent, now we can start looking at metrics to determine survivability, I’m going to disagree here, I think I mostly agree with Pigeon, however I’d go even further and say that the Abrams is equal/better in terms of armor, both have major hull weak points, and on specifically the T-90M, I might be willing to somewhat alter my statement as it does have excellent turret armor, but with the same breech weak points unfortunately. The main difference being that a pen on the T-90m’s hull weak points will always lead to ammo detonation given the ammo placement.
its not cherry picked im literally going through in what ways the abrams is superior.
Firepower - abrams, 2nd best round, 5 second reload.
Mobility - Abrams, 68kmph top speed, 38kmph reverse. faster traverse.
Armour - T series due to the profile and the ERA layout.
First shot survivability - abrams. crew placement, ammo placement, blow out panels and modules to soak it.
overall survivability- abrams due to aformentioned points.
this does not mean the abrams does not need fixes as @SPANISH_AVENGER points out with the comment here
These minor fixes would put it on par with the 2a7 if not better.
where am i being dishonest?
edit, also what
This makes 0 sense as a retort to what i said about the mobility, i know its not an abrams, but its not a russian abrams either. its sluggish as hell and has an 11kmph reverse speed. compared to the abrams
I am happy Gaijin hasn’t implemented some these changes to the Abrams, stuff like the hydraulic pump and volumetic changes to the turret ring assuming it doesn’t have volumetric armor already would be fine. but the Abrams does not need to be superior both numerically and armor wise to the Leo 2a7v, that would be unreal.
Not always; I only load 15 shells on my T-90M and that significantly increases its survivability, since they don’t even fill up 1/3rd of the carousel.
The spall liners, combined with the “external” fuel tanks, do wonders preventing, many times, any damage at all to be done to the modules and crew upon penetrations.
The Abrams on the other hand, whenever penetrated anywhere on the hull, is either completely anihilated via crew death, or mission-killed, which is as good as dead after it’s finished off with a second shot.
Even if an Abrams survives being hit on the hull, in that case you lose your driver, loader, hydraulic pump, engine, transmission, turret traverse mechanisms and gun elevation mechanisms. Sure, you “survived”, but… you didn’t.
5 Likes
its simple, if tanks get fixed as per the bug reports, then their BRs reflect that simple, thats why the BRs exist. Leo2a7 rn should be 12.3.
the m1a2 shoudl not be 11.7
Fair point, but autoloaders, drivers, engine, treads would do the same on the T-90M, even with the spall liners helping a little on side pen, albeit loading less ammo is a very viable strat to not explode in many situations regardless of the tank.
In T-90M’s case, I would say it’s a 50% chance thing;
50% of the times, your turret becomes the manhole cover of that one nuclear test.
50% of the times, you don’t take any damage at all; maybe autoloader and/or engine if you are unlucky.
In the Abrams’ case, it’s ALSO a 50% chance thing, but with a worse outlook;
50% of the times, your whole crew is killed due to the frag grenade-like spalling.
50% of the times, you “survive”, but lose your driver, loader, hydraulic pump, engine, transmission, turret traverse mechanisms and gun elevation mechanisms.
3 Likes
I mean i take 16 in the 72B3 and the 80U and its usually a one tap :(
chinese MBTs as well unfortunately.
maybe im a lucky SOB cause when I use the abrams i usually survive enough to get back repair and fire back, sure reload is effected but im still fighting. compared to when i get penned in the 72 or 80U
If were honest here at top tier, the issue isnt the abrams, the fact that nations with far worse tanks can keep the winrate higher says it all, the Abrams while needs fixed due to realism , isnt horrifically unbalanced like somewant to believe.
2 Likes
the abrams thing i think feels worse cause you survive but not really and just need to wait for the next round xd
2 Likes
take BVM with 1 shell for unkillable demon mode >)
2 Likes
Yes, sometimes I would rather be killed straight away than be kept crippled for 10 more seconds, hahah.
There’s also a factor here; matchmaking.
The most common matchmaking in Top Tier including is usually:
Germany + Sweden + Russia + Italy VS U.S + U.K + Israel
So… yes, Italy may have the worse Arietes; but they also have a Leopard 2A7HU that, in these cases, also add up with Leopard 2A7V, the 3x Strv 122 lineup spam, Russian MBTs and SU-34s and alikes with their KH-38 spam, and Pantsirs negating the strenght of U.S’ CAS.
So, even if Italy “has it worse” than U.S, the matchmaking largely benefits their winrates. That is, not to mention that there’s like 1 Italian player per every 500 U.S players, and that one Italian player is more often than not an eSports-level player looking for a challenge…
That’s why I never liked using Win Rates to determine the capabilities of vehicles; too many human factors involved that alter these outcomes.
1 Like
It’s always the ‘minor nations have the good players’ to explain everything, when in reality that point has become a thing for quite a good time now, it gets tiring.
2 Likes
I can’t specifically talk stats since, well, we don’t have any hard numbers to work with and I’m already running tests on the Abrams and 2a7v stats atm.