The Abrams isn’t terrible, but it isn’t great either.
So when you are forced to face hordes of Leopard 2A7Vs, Leopard 2A7HUs, Strv 122As, Strv 122B+s, Strv 122B PLSSs and T-80BVMs… yeah, it can feel underwhelming to have lolpenable glass armor that gets you killed as soon as someone fires on your general direction while you need to snipe for 3 pixel wide weakspots in order to deal damage.
I can’t wrap my head around the fact that Gaijin has still not bothered to fix the Leclercs, Merkavas and Abrams tanks, and implemented stronger variants already (SEPv3, XLR…). So much for the overhyped Rank VIII.
And no, asking for the turret ring, fuel tank bulkheads, hydraulic pump, non-removable TUSK package and other issues to be fixed isn’t “just wanting to be invincible”.
Also, no, saying “b-b-but Merkava and Ariete are worse!” is not the good argument people who use it make it out to be.
Japanese MBTs are what the Abrams wants to be. It’s always goofy when ppl talk about the Abrams’ 5 seconds reload as if it’s the only thing that decides whether a tank is good, and then completely ignore the TKX/Type 90’s 4 second reloads (and btw they get gen 3 thermals instead of the Abrams gen 1/2).
Japanese MBTs are made of paper, and usually a one shot kill. As for Abrams, while it doesn’t have the best armor, it can tank a hit or two. But yes, while the Japanese MBTs are better, they have a higher skill requirement to play.
The T-80s are vastly superior to the Abrams, and this isn’t even a debate. Russia also has the best helicopter, very good light tanks, every powerful CAS, and the only SPAA good enough to deal with said CAS.
Yes, Russia is a better nation to play overall. Only complaint is the reverse speed. Otherwise, very good nation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.