Once again, the only voice of reason.
I cannot comprehend these people, they’re literally complaining about the BEST VEHICLE IN THE GAME FOR ITS BR.
The M1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4 are far, far, far superior than all of the 10.0s, and have some of the best stats for their BR. They have unprecedented gun handling and mobility, with good armor.
They want to be unrivaled utterly instead of just being the best.
The M1 absolutely should have a better round.
And functional armor.
But it doesn’t because reasons.
Gaijin refuses to elaborate but we all know the real reasons why.
No, its just making very obvious to those that may not pick up on what happened; the way in which statistical analysis and the way results are presented can be used to overstate the importance or the difference in certain aspects. Thus implying that whatever it is is more or less significant that it actually is, which of course is an issue when abstracting and collating data for comparative purposes.
For a moment imagine someone who doesn’t understand the units, being presented a comparison between;
The thing is that they all describe the same thing, even though the numbers are wildly different.
It’s not very different to a news anchor claiming that someone was;
The point I am making is that Context, Modality and Intent make a massive difference as to how a situation may be constructed to suit a narrative.
That having better performance especially surrounding abstract metrics like Mobility (is the tank with better acceleration or top speed, more mobile? I would say that it depends on the map).
Is most useful to players that better understand how to take advantage of it Its otherwise a detriment and effectively relies on either extensive understanding of the map as to take advantage of power positions. As the average player really isn’t that good (and again causes issues relating to the law of large numbers, and outliers. Thus balancing) and tends only know about a handful of them them at best, or how to evolve a route and respond to the match as it develops and so skews performance metrics.
Balancing issues tend to be caused by overly simplistic (SL earnings per hour) Efficiency stats that Gaijin use, not taking into account relative population sizes, and a Skewed Matchmaker optimized for a global 50% W/L rate. Which can only do so much against above average skill players & stacked squads, since as far as we know there isn’t an active system (we know at least one was developed) for skewing RNG.
Because Aircraft were selected as the method to equalize player performance, a tank only mode without a set of overhauled & uniquely developed maps would devolve rapidly into a small number (e.g. a 4 stack squad or two) of players holding power positions and the lines being near static and with little movement as can be seen on maps like Port Novorossiysk [Domination] and Mozdok [Domination] among others.
In the specific and contrived situation of my own construction where the main consideration is sheer Rate of fire, yes it is, and that was the entire point of constructing it in such a manner.
If it was to be compared to something that had a cannon (or alternately the Mk19 or FGM-148 [CROWS -J] mounted) then it might be a noteworthy difference, yes the M2 has more utility but the M1 doesn’t really exist in the space where it often is all that useful as employed by the average player
Let alone the fact later M1 variants are missing its service .50 SLAP ammo which entered service in 1990, that would obviously make a significant difference to the performance of an M1 furnished with said ammo at expected combat ranges, though likely be less impactful than carrying a small number of HEAT, MPAT or Canister shells against said targets.
I’ve rarely seen as much text spilled on things so besides the point, as well as miniscule of importance.
On what basis?
Please feel free to share sources which show the M1 Abrams (1981) is lacking in terms of armour protection, and to which degree.
It probably doesn’t have better armour because the current implementation matches all publicly available sources.
It also doesn’t have a better APFSDS round because it’s already among the best performing 10.3 MBT’s in the game, coppled with having an excellent reload rate and APFSDS round that’s capable enough of dealing with anything it can meet.
Does Gaijin need to ‘‘elaborate’’ on each and every of the 2000+ vehicles in this game?
What even is there to elaborate on exactly?
OP makes that very clear why. You’re wasting typing by even asking that.
I’m not interested in checking your card so tell me; Have you actually played the M1? It’s not the only one lacking in armor protection, of course, but it is lacking.
Not really. Not really. Not everyone runs Ace crews so it’s a moot point to try and make and the round it has is not adequate even at it’s own BR.
They need to elaborate why they keep it gimped compared to it’s contemporaries, which they’ve been called on and still refuse to answer.
Don’t worry I had the time to spare. Its not like I get paid for this or need to be concise, so why not practice writing and an attempt at eloquence not often seen on this forum.
In your opinion, sure. But have you considered that it may not have been written with you as the intended audience?
That it could receive one?
We have balancing mechanisms in place, so why not make use of it? It’s not like there is some shortage of suitable M1 variants that could replace it at 10.3 if it an adjustment was required.
Would it be that hard for them to approximate the relative performance of the array based off modeling the ?HAP-1? / ?EAP? configuration seen of M1150’s / M1 SA lost in Ukrane? Considering we now have a good idea of their composition, and the images exist in the public sphere.
And the fact that the relative thickness of the arrays are observable, thus their relative effectiveness able to be asserted.
They could even write up a devblog expanding on why they are(n’t) making changes based on the results, the same way they did with Western MANPADS even though it has been asserted that there are oversights that were made and improper assumptions / simplifications reached.
That doesn’t mean I have to agree with the OP.
Like I said in my response, M1 reloads 20% faster than a Leopard 2A4 whilst only having 11% worse penetration. Nobody ever seems to complain about the Leopard 2A4 lacking in firepower so I don’t see why the M1 would be lacking either.
109 battles played in the M1 Abrams (892 battles across multiple M1 variants).
71% winrate.
6.5 - 1 K/D ratio.
3.0 K/M ratio.
You seem to imply that this only counts for the M1 and not for the countless other tanks it faces?
The difference in reload rate only grows depending on crew levels, an experted 2A4 loads 1.1 seconds slower (instead of 1.0 seconds) than a M1 with equal crew levels.
M1 Abrams isn’t gimped, people are just bad at the game and/or US mains that believe grass is always greener on the other side.
Also, I asked you to provide sources for your claims, since you aren’t presenting any I’d say the following goes into effect: ‘‘That what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.’’
Because that " 20% " faster reload means nothing when that " 11% " less penetration is what actually matters in an engagement atmosphere where he who shoots first often wins. Especially against an M1 that is practically paper mache because it’s hull armor and turret ring armor aren’t modeled properly.
Okay, cool. So you should understand the major shortcomings and argue for rectification rather than for the M1s to stay gimped.
Going back to 1; Having a negligibly faster reload rate means nothing in an atmosphere where he who shoots first will often win, especially when the tanks the M1 faces have very noticeably better rounds when it comes to penetration.
No it’s gimped. No matter how hard you try you can’t gaslight me. I’ve been playing this game for far too long. And you trying to dismiss be because I don’t keep links on standby doesn’t help your argument. But since you just want to keep gaslighting on this topic it’s very telling that you’re not worth engaging anyways, so we can just leave it at that.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t get M833. If its performance really ends up that much better just move it to 10.7 tbh I see no issue with that.
I’m not going to sit here and say the Abrams is bad, but I am going to say as far as starter MBTs go its probably the most difficult to learn with simply because of all of the funkiness it has going on with its armor and speed. Having a hull UFP that can bounce anything is great! Having a non-volumetric turret ring that then absorbs the bounced rounds is not. Being the fastest or one of the fastest MBTs at the BR when spaded is great! Struggling with steering and being kinda slow before spading is not. Again, it isn’t bad or anything- simply its difficult to learn and adapt to so getting to a good point where you can do well takes a while. Its performance is non-uniform [i.e. it has some good armor in spots but not always, it has good mobility some ways but not always, you can’t say any definitives “bad mobility good armor (like the T-72)” or “good mobility/gun mediocre armor (Leo 2A4)”], and that always ends up hurting people trying to learn how to use it.
But that’s just my opinion. Not trying to attack or hurt anyone here, so please don’t act like I am.
So could countless other vehicles.
What even is the reason to claim the M1 is in need of rebalancing?
Like I said before, it is among the best performing MBT’s at it’s BR and has been for years. It’s also not drastically exceeding it’s peers to the point where it needs a BR raise either.
I simply don’t see any reason to fiddle with a vehicle that’s performing well.
What does that have to do with the armour on the M1 Abrams (1981)?
I really don’t have any idea where you’re going with this.
Firstly, those vehicles do not use the same armour composition. This is the equivalent of using photographic evidence of a T-90M’s internal armour to model a T-72A.
Secondly, there’s better sources available which provide us with actual hard data points on the performance of the armour. There’s also numerous documents which contain protection requirements during it’s development cycle.
Thirdly, people are already giving Gaijin harsh words for using the Swedish Trails documents to model the domestic M1A2, yet you’re proposing to substitute that with yet another export vehicle’s armour?
It’s sad the xenophobia some people say.
Especially since USA is stronger than the Soviets in War Thunder.
M833 is DM23 equivalent tho, M1 Abrams should probably get it.
1- M833 is still lower pen than DM23.
2- Same turret armor. 430 for M1, 440 for 2A4.
3- They’re the same size when accounting for Abrams’ turret ring.
4- Both about 122 when not at ricochet angles.
5- Abrams is 15 seconds to 60kph, Leopard 2A4 is 14 seconds to 60kph.
6- Hull ammo is optional on both Abrams and Leopard 2A4.
7- 50 cals ain’t going through 10.0 IFVs.
2A4 would retain its advantages over M1 Abrams if Abrams got M833.
Yet all the best players in this game claim reload rate is the more important metric.
Yes, my 71% winrate, 6.5 - 1 K/D ratio M1 is clearly indicating major shortcomings.
It desperately requires major buffs so that I can finally reach that 90% winrate and 10 - 1 K/D ratio.
And if the M1 shoots first, it wins extra easily thanks to it’s massively quick follow-up shot?
You forgot: ‘‘Trust me bro’’.
(X)M1 Abrams protection requirements:
To resist 115mm APFSDS at 800m distance (XM579E4 used as simulant), 161mm Penetration Capability @ 60° (332mm effective LoS)
In-game M1 achieves 350mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc against APFSDS.
To resist BRL 127mm Shaped Charge, 318mm Penetration Capability @ 60° (636mm effective LoS)
In-game M1 achieves 721mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc against HEAT.
Another source hinting at 350mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc:
And another:
And another:
Protection requirements here:
And here:
And here:
3- This proves the point in my post correct.
5- Video doesn’t lie…
Indeed it doesn’t:
The fact that your M1 is 2 seconds slower just means you’re using one that is missing modules, or you’re slowing it down via some other means.
People not understanding that non-volumetric armor being fired at with volumetric shells is the cause of volumetric infinite armor bugs for the 100th time…
The Abrams turret ring is already extremely trolly because it isn’t volumetric.
Armor being made volumetric is what removes volumetric bugs and it becomes weaker because there are no longer issues with armor of constant thickness overlapping in areas where its thickness should be far lower.
That is to say - making the turret ring volumetric would only weaken it, at least from the standpoint of “volumetric” bugs. Volumetric non-pens are a result of volumetric shells, not volumetric armor. Volumetric armor is what removes volumetric bugs, and it exists for that purpose.
To be fair, it’s currently 65mm in spots, that definitely shouldn’t be the case and allows for autocannons to penetrate it.
I personally don’t have too many encounters with autocannons and it also wouldn’t help against 120mm+ APFSDS, but the point still remains that a conversion to volumetric would at least make the turret ring autocannon proof via raw thickness.
LOL! Test drive has all modules unlocked, and keyboards are digital so speed cannot be controlled.
Thanks for confirming no one should take any of your posts here seriously.
Necron admitted to posting lies, guys. Best ignore his posts on this topic.
That would depend on how they implement the turret ring volumetric.
I feel like it could be a monkey’s paw and create weaknesses, just like it did with the Challenger 2 breech rework, where it became thicker in areas, but also thinner in a few select spots.
