I think its word has more weight than both of us here, it has lit more experience on ground than both of us combined.
It’s not enough experience.
[quote=“PyroAddict, post:1906, topic:140612”]
I think its word has more weight than both of us here, it has lit more experience on ground than both of us combined.
he means that its off topic.
It isn’t.
They’re not both superior. Only leos are. T-series have fairly better survivability on brawling, and suprise! a decent majority of WTs ground maps are based on brawling around capture points.
1 Like
May I ask you to elaborate on that, and specifically, which T-series tanks.
It’s not off topic. If he’s asking for experiences, i may ask for someone else’s experience, like you rely on Remilia’s views or theirs.
you’re saying the chance of a t90m/t80bvm/latest t72 tanking a side shot due to era is so low that I need more than 90 uptiers (where i kill several of those) for it to happen? or are you claiming i just did not notice those moments before?
1 Like
the abrams is superior to the T series tanks. which you dont even have.
The abrams has better firepower, mobility, in general survivabily due to more crew, ammo placement, fuel placement.
it only lacks on armour. that is it.
+Blowout panels.
I’d even say the Abrams has superior armor over all, given it’s 800m of turret protection and less vulnerable breech weak spot, with the hulls of both tanks having significant weak spots, though you’d be hard pressed to find a tank with no hull weak points anyways.
2 Likes
I have thousands of games at top tier, literally, the ERA on the BVM or T72B3/T90M eating side shots isnt common compared to say, the breach on a leo2a4 sucking a round into it, the fuel on a CR2 soaking one.
2 Likes
the T series are smaller overall and generally their armour is their calling card.
that is literally it.
I stopped my grind for the T80BVM due to how horrifying to use the T72B3 and T80U are while i can do alright its just not fun, you get penned you die thats it
1 Like
the T-90M has all-around better survivability than any M1A2. Not better mobility, nor firepower, but survivability. In a top tier, brawling-based environment, whoever manages to withstand a shot without compromising its breach/cannon is capable to singlehandedly win the encounter hands down.
T-80BVM is a russian Abrams, it has a decent mobility, while being capable of having arguably a competitive armor scheme.
2 Likes
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