even with the turret ring fix it would still be pretty easy to penetrate, though autocannons would not be able to
2 Likes
Same for Abrams, except its always 1-shot kill, with exception of the few cases where you lose your ring and engine at the same time, thus effectively killing you anyways.
Ye no matter what the ring will be a weakspot. Its thickness isn’t the only problem though. The turret ring itself is supposed to be lower.
2 Likes
They only have reload speed and mobility going for them. Armor, gun handling and survivability are definitely in favor of M1s. Those two are pretty similar in performance, but I’d give a slight edge to M1s.
Centauros are not very good. They’re probably the worst top tier lights in the game by a big margin. Remove their top shell and they can easily go down to 11.0 as they’re lacking key features a light tank should have.
Only T-80 that’s superior is the BVM.
They have amazing CAP.
Leclercs are still in the game, so counting them is valid.
2 Likes
Not the same as M1s have working turret armor and UFP can eat shots. Their armor layout is definitely better.
1 Like
I watched a BT-5 kill an Abrams front on…
I literally apologise every time I kill an Abrams frontally from 200m away with PUMA’s 30mm autocanon. It feels like cheating.
I’ll take Type 10’s 580mm KE hull over the Abrams’ laughable 370mm one… it very often tanks shells such as 3BM46, 3BM60, DM43, L27A1, OFL F1, and sometimes even better shells like M322 depending on the range and angle.
Meanwhile, the Abrams hull can’t even withstand 3BM42.
When it comes to survivability… any penetration on the Abrams turret ring neck or hull is a kill. Even if you happen to survive a hit on the hull, you still get the hydraulic pump, driver, engine, transmission, gun breech, elevation mechanism and turret traverse mechanism destroyed, so you are practically dead anyway, it will just take 5 more seconds for you to be executed through a second shot.
Gun handling, I’ll give that to the Abrams, of course. Even mobility, since Gaijin actively refuses to fix Type 10’s steering and acceleration.
3 Likes
survivability favors the Type 90 and TKX.
and the T-80U, and the T-80UK.
FCM.36 is also in the game but we don’t care about it.
I have never survived/not killed an Abrams by shooting its UFP or LFP. They both result in crew knockout just about 100% of the time.
1 Like
I don’t know about that. Both have really poor LFPs while M1s have auto ricochet UFP. Types also have one less crew member so OHKs are that much easier. Turret armor is also on the side of M1s so I’d still pick them over Types when it comes to armor.
I’m not really talking about angle performance as shooting at angled UFP/LFP instead of idler wheel is something no one should be doing on a regular basis.
Hydraulic pump seems to be an issue for M1s, so moving it to it’s original spot should increase the likelihood of M1s being able to shoot back. Though I’d still give M1 the survivability advantage as having 3 crew with sub-par armor is nothing to show off.
I’m currently grinding Japan so I’ll see for myself how bad their true mobility is.
There’s no chance they have better survivability than M1s.
Not really.
When compared to BVM, they all have crappy gun handling, weaker shells and gen1 thermals. They also lack Relikt bags on the side, decreasing their armor.
Those two certainly aren’t better than 12.0 SEP.
Leclercs are 12.0 Tier 8 vehicles, ignoring them is foolish.
I have.
2 Likes
Yep there’s no chance, it’s the simply reality.
Worse than the BVM? yes. Worse than the Abrams? Hell no!
No1 in their right mind plays em tho. We shouldn’t have balance discussions based on unplayed, unwanted vehicles.
Congrats you’ve experience a 1 in 1,000 event where shooting the UFP doesn’t just instantly nuke the entire tank.
Sorry but you’re wrong. We’ll have to disagree on this one.
They are worse than SEP.
Their pros are better UFP armor and better forwards mobility. Everything else is on SEP’s side.
Balance discussions on top tier matter should include all contemporaries, with Leclercs, Merkavas, Arietes included.
Doubt.
2 Likes
Abrams doesn’t always get one-shot bro, getting penned and two crews going to Valhalla happen more often base on my experience, then taking the next penetrating hit is usually KO because we can only afford to send another one, when playing against it I always find them the hardest to OHKO, from the sides you really have to aim for the center else you ended up nuking two crews and more often than not the commander take over and shoot you before you can load another shell. If you say vehicle that is easiest to OHKO base on my experience? try Japanese, three crews and dogshit armor
2 Likes
T-80’s pros are:
- Mobility
- Smaller sillhouette
- Smaller weakspots
- Better survivability
- Reloads during firefighting
- No Gyat (can fire at enemies behind)
- Powerful HE (extraordinarily useful for destroying hull-down manless turret light tanks)
- Quieter engine
- Turns quicker (Abrams neutral steering is nice, but it’s slower than the T-80’s steering)
- Has an ATGM
- Better turret .50cal
Abrams advantage are:
- Gun depression
- Reverse speed
- 1 second shorter reload
All of which are just QoL advantages.
2 Likes
Yes, plenty of the things you mentioned for 80U are just that.
1 Like
You mispoke. You meant to say, everything for the Abrams is just that (QoL upsides)
Out of all the upsides the T-80 has
- Mobility
- Smaller sillhouette
- Smaller weakspots
- Better survivability
- Reloads during firefighting
- No Gyat (can fire at enemies behind)
- Powerful HE (extraordinarily useful for destroying hull-down manless turret light tanks)
- Quieter engine
- Turns quicker (Abrams neutral steering is nice, but it’s slower than the T-80’s steering)
- Has an ATGM
- Better turret .50cal
Only the “Turns quicker”, “Better turret .50cal”, and “Quieter engine” are mere QoL upsides.
You forgot about ATGMs, HE and gyat.
That reload during firefighting comes at a price though. Autoloader module can be damaged and you can’t reload, which means you can’t fire back even if your crew/breech/barrel is intact.
Survivability is outright false as well.
2 Likes
ok, MAYBE the ATGM, but the HE and gyat are seriously useful.
Autoloader damage comes at a price though. The autoloader often eats all shells stopping them from hitting the ammo.
Uhh, no. You’re more likely to survive a penetration in T-80 than in Abrams. That’s a simply statistical Warthunder truth.
HEAT can easily overpressure vehicles with crewless turrets like Khrizantema or 2S38.
Gyat is seriously niche.
M1s don’t need to worry about their ammo and reloading mechanism taking damage with each penetrating hit.
Unless you have evidence for that I’m afraid we’ll have to look at vehicles’ features. 80U is smaller, more cramped vehicle with one less crew member. It has ammo stowage in the center of the hull alongside multiple internal fuel tanks.
2 Likes
Easily? most certainly not. Besides, there’s more than just the Rizztema and 2S38
Well, they would have to worry about their loader, if it weren’t for them dying to the first shot 90% of the time anyways
Yup. There’s more volumetric BS to absorb shells, aswell as fuel tanks. A side shot to the turret will kill any toptier tank, except Leo 2s.
Yeah those are really easy to kill by overpressure with HEAT.
They still need to lose one extra crew member to die, which is a positive.
Internal fuel tanks can and will explode killing the tank in the process, which can’t be said for external ones that M1s have in the front of their hull.
M1s have more empty space in general, don’t have ammo racks in the center of their hull and have extra crew member, so survivability will be better. This is a pretty logical conclusion and until you show some evidence that’s stating otherwise I’m afraid we have nothing else to talk about on this matter.
2 Likes