The most correct non biased take in this thread. I’d also add on the that the ADATS TD spawn costs really screws with them since there’s no absolutely no chance for them to make up SP points and make a comeback if they do poorly initially. They are instantly out of the match
1 Like
I’ve got my M1A2 and M1A2 SEP unlocked and catching dust in my hangar, there’s no way I’m purchasing talismans for those, and then subjecting myself to teammates who don’t notice enemies killing their teammates 2 metres next to them.
6 Likes
At this point they need to add the SEPv3 not even only because it’s a 2A7/Strv 122 counterpart, but more importantly to get some of the better player back playing the US.
I’m curious to what extend the reload buff was a balance change or a “wtf the US winrates are tanking, quick give better players a reason to keep playing top tier US”. Because you can’t convince me that Gaijin didn’t know what kind of WR damage the Click-baits would cause.
And they had to have known that the SEPv2 as it currently is was just a worthless addition that nobody would get hyped about (although I wouldn’t be suprised if I’m wrong on this one, Gaijin seems very disconnected at times).
8 Likes
I bet they weren’t expecting the extent of the impact of the Click-Bait and AIM would have on US win rates and then handed out the reload buff as compensation.
The fact they added the SEPv2 without the future sight of players wanted to take off the Tusk kit, is atrocious. Tusk 1 was useless, why would you go through the effort of modeling Tusk 2 when it will be even more useless (This could be said about all NATO ERA).
4 Likes
All I know is- the reload buff is single-handedly carrying the capabilities and appeal of the Abrams right now.
Without the reload buff, the Abrams was literally, absolutely and utterly pointless.
Right now, all that’s keeping it relevant is the above-average rate of fire. It’s its main true selling point and ONLY advantage compared to the absolute units 2A7s and 122s are, and, as of now, its primary advantage against other tanks, like the Chinese and Russian ones.
Without the reload buff, even Leclercs would be better than the Abrams.
4 Likes
Abrams reload buffs also invalidates any reason to play Challengers aside from innate mobility advantage of the Abrams.
1 Like
Challengers have significantly better armor and spall liners, so they have their own strengths, even if weaknesses too.
And to their credit, the armor should be even better and they should have even more spall liners (LFP at the very least are known to be missing)- all of it being “acknowledged” issues as of now.
1 Like
Gaijin will dilly dally with the acknowledged reports because that would involve actually having your developers work for once in their life.
Challengers, Merkava and Arietes are left to rot in the trash bin.
Spall liners are an actually joke since 2A7V spall nerfs for some reason.
The only strength CR2s have is the turret cheeks, after begging for attention like starving child, Gaijin finally blessed Britain with a mantlet remodel.Just for some Russian preschooler to flunk their math test and be incapable of adding 4 numbers together for the mantlet protection.
Why do you think the acknowledge Abrams report have been in acknowledge limbo for so long.
2 Likes
Sad heavy air noises
Challengers have significantly better armor
2 Likes
It’s nice to see that you’re itching for the same kind of baits you were doing some comms above. Your ragebait and hatred shows by itself.
Bait? I’m just quoting someone.
1 Like
3 Likes
Spanish posted some days ago a photo where she got killed by DM53 ± where you are aiming that says “Ricochet”, so yeah, i dont think we can trust that
I know that DM53 and 3BM60 are not the same thing, but this place can be breached
Yup. I’ll stick to the M1A1 if/when the SEPV3 gets added to grind it.
Read; Probability of ricochet: 81%. Personally, I haven’t been killed by a ricochet off my UFP in hundreds of Abrams games. Does that mean that it can’t happen? No. But unlikely to the extreme? Yes. It’s a reliable bounce zone and one bit of anecdotal evidence doesn’t discount that.
Besides, the main point of my post is that you can reliably gut the Challenger crew with a center-of-mass body shot, regardless of spall liners and supposedly ‘superior’ armour. To even suggest that the Challengers are better than the Abrams in any way is folly. (Besides, perhaps, aesthetics. I find the Black Knight very cute.)
1 Like
Ah yes, my point was that just bc is 81% ricochet it still can kill you, like the DM13 that can pen the turret ring: its not your biggest threat, but it could kill you anyway
2 Likes
Challenger 2’s glacis composite at least can take up to 3BM60 (and even more depending on the range and angle); and even when/if a shell goes through, the spall liners increase the survivability by a lot; specially since the gunner and loader are high into the turret.
The Abrams on the other hand can’t even withstand 3BM42; and as someone else pointed out, the “auto-ricochet UFP” only ever works in perfect LOS angles; a single degree of a difference will turn it into paper; not to mention that most UFP ricochets go straight into the underperforming turret ring and kill everyone in the turret anyway (even though APFSDS shouldn’t bounce but shatter on the first place).
1 Like
Truest statement. Challenger 2 are among the coolest looking tank, second to EMBTs
2 Likes
As per usual, a cherrypicked screenshot that doesn’t show where the actual point of impact was. Praise server replay.
That shot actually hit the very top of the LFP, not the UFP.
Just cherrypicked out of context screenshots attempting to be disingenuous as usual.
2 Likes