For the sake of Balancing of high tiered IFVs like the KF41, which has a tough time enough with the dogshit 30mm, it’s a chore to breach snipe let alone do anything to most MBTs frontally while having comparable mobility to most MBTs, making flanking an unreliable strategy on a whole host of maps, I am not suggesting you should be able to completely knock out an Abrams with frontal autocannon fire, what I am suggesting is the capability to effectively defend yourself by hitting the breach/turret ring/driver
Are you suggesting that 65 ton Main Battle Tanks should be artificially nerfed so that a light support IFV can kill them frontally with a tiny autocanon because… apparently that’s balance?
Well, that’s currently what’s happening and what shouldn’t happen if modelling was correct.
Barrel damage should be made consisted once again (suddenly barrels will bounce off 120mm shells since a few months ago, that’s weird) and they could even implement optic damage simulations (cracks, etc) to hinder visibility upon being hit, the same way they modelled commander periscope destruction… but artificial nerfs are NEVER the solution to anything.
1 Like
Nobody just “wants the abrams to be invincible” besides 2-3 idiots you’ll find on here, dont be mistaken.
1 Like
Yeah and that’s my overarching point in the past threads. Your problems aren’t so much stemming from a vehicle error it’s a lack of game mechanics. You can absolutely kill a main battle tank by doing damage to it’s sensors but because this a video game and top tier has been just extended from it’s early cold war mechanics to include a more modern time period you end up with an extremely botched match up that you can only balance via armor, reload and mobility which by every definition of the main battle tank is not how it works.
It seems plenty of you do, removal of the hull weakspot, buffing of the breach to the same protection level as the cheeks (stupid idea btw), buffing of the only remaining weakspot with a 220mm volumetric turret ring all suggest that you want to roll around like a hollywood abrams and ignore all fire while having some of the best mobility and firepower at top tier
Hearing this argument irks me, honestly. So what the abrams was made to be used in conjunction with air cover? It’s still meant to be protected against anti-armor threats.
1 Like
the report was successfully acknowledged and passed to the developers already.
Just like that M60 mantlet, I can’t wait to see the results.
it’s essentially the same as a mobility kill, and if light tanks can have their components modelled then so can MBTs
You mean the turret neck issue which Gaijin’s model already shows is more than 50mm but is portrayed as only 50mm of protection?
Problem?
It’s still meant to be protected against anti-armor threats.
Sure, absolutely, definitely, correct. But most of those threats stem from the 80s/90s. The ammo being fired is from last decade which is a significant improvement over the cold war. Tank armor isn’t a sure fire way to defend against inbound threats, this is why APS is the new hotness. The M1 is not going to be able to bounce 3BM60+ unless you sacrifice mobility.
lol, as if the entire front hull armor is useful somehow at 11.7.
lmao even.
2 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone suggest this should be the case or ask for it
Oh, excuse us for not being fans of artificial nerfs. How much would you like it if your Leopard 2A7V had an artificially and comically large 50mm thick neck, instead of the near-immune front profile you currently have? I take it you would ask for it to be corrected… I wonder, would that make you “just want to be invincible”…?
We literally want it to be how it is in REAL LIFE, not “Hollywood”.
3 Likes
Here goes this argument. The abrams has had multiple armor upgrades since it’s introduction, lets not act like it was only EVER armored to fight 3BM5 (i’ve heard this on this forum)
1 Like
Watch him claim the UFP is impenetrable and quote fuckin NECRONS’ video
1 Like
Also taking into account that the Abrams was designed with the protection onion in mind, it’s armour is as good as any but it’s meant to prioritize defensive and long range strategy with less of an emphasis of tanking multiple modern APFSDS rounds without a bit of sting
Do you expect the M1 to be able to withstand a LOSAT, ATAKA or 3BM70?
We already have asked for the Hull to be corrected and a multitude of other inaccuracies to be improved on but remain just as broken as the challenger or abrams
And theres already a hole in your logic. If the armor is as good as any, why is there a massive 50mm gap? lol.
As always:
Ask Leopard 2A7V’s middle glacis to go from 670mm KE to 750mm KE? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V’s base hull armor to go from 350-430mm KE to 500-585mm KE? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V to have a fully immune UFP? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V’s cheeks to go from 800mm KE to 880mm KE? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V’s UFP to become fully immune? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V’s spall liners to perform even better? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V to get DM63 or even DM73? It’s fineee.
Ask Leopard 2A7V to have better acceleration than Leopard 2A4? It’s fineee.
.
.
.
Ask the Abrams’ artificially nerfed 50mm thick center of mass to be 300mm thick as in real life so that it isn’t comically weak to even SPAAs? yOu JuSt WaNt To Be InViNcIbLe.
And my point is proven. It is fine to ask for Leopard 2A7V, the strongest MBT in the game with enormous strengths and no weaknesses, to be even stronger; but if we dare ask for a historical fix of a comically large nerf on the Abrams that wouldn’t even make that much of a difference, suddenly it becomes a problem.
4 Likes
Design choice of prioritizing training over relying on armor.