‘‘I have no valid counterarguments to what you just said.’’ is what I’m reading here.
1 Like
you have no arguments
1 Like
If it’s fake how come I can see videos and pictures of it functioning and exploding in non-descript locations in a various region of the globe?
It’s not magic. As much as I don’t like it, it’s the intentional design of the relikt blocks to stop KE rounds. The numbers they use may be inflated, but they are so the numbers the manufacturer gives. When the US stops being secret about its stuff, we can use those numbers too. But unfortunately a lot of stuff is being pushed into the “classified” zone, where we either don’t know or can’t publish what we do know. Russia is not very good at keeping things Classified. The US is. Simple as.
I struggle way more with Leos than T-series. Unfortunately for the Leo crew spacing and placement are very advantageous unlike in the T-series tanks. Unless you are talking about the Leo 1s in which case, why.
Yes they are too tanky. However thanks to the twin rotor design technically they don’t need a tail to fly straight.
I cannot argue with this. But I think overall on WT Data Project the 11.7 Ruskis perform worse than 11.7 Germans.
Again, I’m not saying Russia isn’t strong. It is, and much stronger than the US I would argue. But what you are saying is blatantly false or uneducated, which leads to problems overall.
3 Likes
kamov twin rotor design doesnt allow it to be fully operational irl like it does in WT
not to mention the electronics in tail snap point that would make it basically unuseable and at best allow pilot to land safely, not to continue fighting and doing 360 rolls
leopard a7 has almost no crew spacing? they are very tight in the turret and even if you dont one shot it it wont be able to retaliate and you have time to reload and kill it
I would love to hear your opinion on crew spacing in the BVM then.
But it does allow it to keep flying and steady. Which is all you need in WT to get kills. Because none of the stuff is modelled, on ANY Heli (not exclusive to the Kas, you know).
Assuming you both A. Aren’t side on B. Penetrate and C. Knock out both gunner and commander. You’d be surprised how much that doesn’t happen. Plus, taking an extra shot is an extra shot. I’d rather have the one-shot kill of the T-90 from pretty much anywhere then need to take 2-3 shots to kill the 2A7.
it wouldnt fly steady if it was modelled correctly
and you most likely wont one shot a t90 because your shot will somehow end up on its era or get blocked by putinium driver/fuel tank or just pass through ammo without detonating it
No helicopter is modelled correctly. You can have this if every other Heli gets remodelled, which is an inherent nerf to all of them.
I haven’t had this happen to me in a while. Especially at top tier. Unless you are aiming at an already wild angle or hit something like a fuel tank (which also absorbs shots on every other tank) then it doesn’t happen often enough for it to be any less consistent then any other tank at the BR.
If you have proof of these, submit them to Gaijin as a bug report. And don’t pretend like Russia has no more rounds to add. I can think of 3BM42-2, 3BM48 and 3BM59 are three examples of rounds more powerful than 3BM60 that aren’t in the game yet.
But even if NATO had vastly superior ammunition to Russia IRL (which, admittedly is probably true), under what justification should it be added to War Thunder? (IE, what tanks should get it, and why?)
The Leopard 2s (and 122s) are already the best tanks at top tier by far.
The Abrams has the best firepower in the game, because it has the 2nd best round in game, as well as a 5 second reload.
The Challenger 3 and Ariete, while weak, don’t underperform because of their firepower.
In fact, the only countries that struggle with firepower at top tier are the Russians and Chinese (longest reloads and worst rounds).
Are you saying the best tanks in game should be further buffed? I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot, if that happened, you’d be crying “rUSsIAn BIaS”.
5 Likes
i dont have any legal documents, and I’m not going to cry about russian bias, I’m just annoyed that tanks arent getting their available ammunition types because another doesn’t have anything to rival it other than the OBJ 292 which is really damn fun to play
I find that it is perpetrated more by high tier NATO players because they want to have the best vehicles. Or they are making excuses for poor performance.
1 Like
If I was a bad player, I’d be blaming American bias for my T-80BVM deaths.
And German bias for my M1A2 SEP deaths.
1 Like
be careful everyone, there are German mains in the chat that argue the M1 Abrams doesn’t need any improvements. they go around to every forum about the m1 Abrams and hound everyone in chat with mediocre positives that suggest its overpowered. they even go as far as making everyone feel stupid and unimportant in the most polite manner.
meanwhile, they go back to posts about the leopards being heavily underpowered and they need critical buffs to be almost competitive. but when you look at their service records in their profiles, you’ll find they have considerably more time played in germany than they have in american. in addition, if they have played american, they’ll have more time played in any other american vehicle aside from the M1 Abrams.
i won’t name names, but they are here in the forum. including other forums that argue the same thing.
careful not to be influenced by their biased propaganda and stay true to the idea that the M1 Abrams needs better ammo.
3 Likes
M1 is a pretty good tank at 10.7, it doesn’t need better rounds.
4 Likes
Considering the anemic damage of M774, M833 probably would have saved me at least one probably two in the engagement at ~3:00 with the T-80U in the following replay, the only reason I got so far is because the first T-90M almost completely whiffed with BM-60, and said T-80U had a GLATGM loaded for whatever reason (seriously, why take a 28x GLATGM, 12x HE & 3 APFSDS loadout? ) and aimed for the very edge of the turret cheek instead of the UFP, mantlet or doghouse.
Considering the rest were shot in the side / rear M833 wouldn’t have made that much of a difference.
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/276325199255345051?public_key=UOWlwLc8M1wOUKRPSEy9
3 Likes
I also wish the T-72 get better ammunition to offsets its terrible reverse speed, I’ve lost count on how many times I died due to reverse speed, I think the 9.3 T-72 needs 3BM42 bro it will compensate for the poor reverse speed, and the 10.3s ones need 3BM46 because I don’t know how to play it at 10.3, I always die bro sometimes no kill, must be the tank suck.
3 Likes
Great, anemic damage should be a con of M1 so it’s working as intended.
3 Likes
I went looking at other tech trees And I was surprised by how prevalent DM-33 / 3BM42 & equivalents actually are at 10.7 & 10.3 which completely invalidate the turret armor, let alone the rest of the schema of the basic M1, well past 2km.
An additionally contributing factor is that there is a fairly small quantity of vehicles and lineups in the 9.7~10.3 range, so getting even partial downtiers are fairly rare, which makes things worse since facing opponents that might actually struggle to deal with your armor is near non existent, and even then they still have HE-FS (e.g. 3OF26) & GLATGMs (9M112) that still reliably one shot via the doghouse.
Honestly having looked at what other nations have available to them in the 10.x ~ 11.7 bracket I’m not even sure that M900 would be enough.
2 Likes
Which is nice, as M1 or 2A4 were never really armor focused vehicles.
Vehicles that have armor as their focal point, such as T-tanks and copies are actually more affected by the fact you can see high powered rounds at that BR, as it’s nullifying one of their biggest pros.
I’m not against M1 with M900, I’m only against M1 with M900 at 10.7.
2 Likes
tbh Gaijin should introduce a system where vehicles can gain access to their better round depending on the BR match they get.
For Example when M1 Abrams are in 10.0-10.7 BR match current M774 should be enough.
But when it got up-tier match to 11.0-11.7 M900 should be available for them.
What is that even supposed to mean? Yes they were, they are a significant and deliberate upgrade in comparison to the M48 & M60 that precede them, the Improved Protection Arrays developed for the M1E1 (would go on to become the M1A1) were even backported in short order (to produce the M1IP configuration), shortly after hulls enter Full rate production.
Even M900 doesn’t go though the entirety of turret of a T-80B / T-72B at point blank, And M774 doesn’t touch much more than the Mantlet, drivers port and Lower plate.
I can’t say the same of 3BM42(if you account for the +/- 10% Rng on penetration, even the Side opposite the doghouse (covers the loader) is at risk) or 3MB60 at 2km vs the basic M1, and considering you can find 3BM42 readily available at 10.3 when the M1 is at 10.7, there is little point going Hull down since they still penetrate the turret anyway or use 3OF26 / assorted GLATGM and aim for the doghouse, and you still need to aim for the lower plate.
The basic M1’s entire armor layout is effectively completely overmatched by threats you can expect to face, and so offers no protection, the only hope is that they whiff into the UFP, and it doesn’t go though the turret ring or they don’t simply aim center of mass and only damage the engine (with the erroneous inclusion of the Hydraulic reservoir, in the turret drive system, this has become even harder).
Yes sure, if uncontested when flanking and punishing mistakes the M1 does better, if not the best of the three designs due to the ~ 2RPM advantage over the others, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that it is categorically the worst in an extended engagement (the M60-2000 (M60-120S, in game) is a straight upgrade at a lower BR in this respect due to using the M1A1’s turret, and has access to far better ammo, M829A2 as found on the 11.7 M1A2. I guess its the 2S25M counterpart at a much higher BR) or brawling, and with flanking being so map & game sense dependent, is it any wonder it performs poorly in the hands of people that don’t know what they are doing, or at least those that don’t have a significant edge vs their opponents?
So the M60-2000 (10.3) should be sent to 11.7 right? It has all the relevant advantages of M1A2, Same ammo, good thermals, same reload, same turret armor, a similarly redundant hull array.
Should the 2S25M get sent to 12.0 due to access to 3BM60?
I think that that would probably cause issues, it be better if it was done in reverse where better ammo is removed in downtiers.
I’d argue that layouts that M774 start to have issue with at the moment start at 10.3 / 10.7 (T-27B / T-80B), and considering their access to 3BM42 they won’t have issues with the M1, M833 improves things over M774 out to about 600 meters, M900 about 1.8km putting them on a relatively level playing field.
If anything the fact that the M1IP is a whole 1.0 higher the base model is odd since the only significant changes are to both ammo (M900) and modifies the turret to be resistant to 3BM42 that proves the point, it doesn’t help that by that point other nations have DM42 & 3BM46 which again make the Improved arrays redundant out to 2km.
3 Likes