I made the argument that players who play all nations have a better grasp on game balance.
Here we see my argument in full colours, Selasco_, someone who only plays USA Rank VIII making comments that show massive ignorance regarding the problems other nations have to face.
‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’…
Because they are in real life too, nothing Gaijin can do about it.
No, the Abrams physically 300mm thick turret ring being modelles as a 50mm thick plate is not “shitty design”. It’s shitty ingame modelling. That’s the whole point.
Except for me and all those who agree that the Abrams is not all that excellent right now, apparently.
I play literally EVERY nation at Top Tier except for Italy and China… but my opinion does not count just because it doesn’t suit the narrative.
Yet your opinion is more valid than mine in spite of your own logic when you only have experience with M1A1 at most and the rest of it is on German tanks.
I’d word it again for ‘a design that does not quite fit with how the game plays out’. It might be false at the moment, yes, but isn’t APFSDS shell still going to punch through it when they fix it? He is not half wrong. I’ve also heard that the turret ring itself is “way too exposed” and some things along the lines, but I do not know myself. Well, it does boil down to the design of the tank is what I’m trying to say. Unfortunately.
Direct APFSDS impacts would still penetrate, yes;
But at least it would withstand autocanon fire; not just from SPAAs, but also from IFVs- and not only that, but also even low pen APFSDS, such as 2S38’s.
It would also withstand much better the energy-drained UFP ricochets that go into the turret ring, killing the whole turret crew…
Something which shouldn’t even happen on the first place; shells hitting the UFP should shatter, not bounce-off like a shot-trap into the ring. Yet another way in which the Abrams is performing artificially worse due to poor ingame modelling.
The Abrams isn’t
So? Even with 300mm thick turret ring the Abrams would still be worse than the Leopard 2. All it would do is make the neck shot more inconsistent, but most rounds would be more than able to pen it.
The only top tier tank better than the Abrams is the Leopard 2 (and all its variants), and nothing could be realistically changed to make it better. The Abrams has the same mobility and better firepower than the Leopard, it just lacks armor.
But the LFP weak spot will always be there on variants that aren’t the SEPV3, and a 300mm turret neck still wouldn’t be able to fully stop most top tier rounds.
Still won’t defeat any modern APFSDS.
Look at the Leclerc and Leopard which have been designed infinitely better. Neither of them suffer from an exposed turret ring:
Leclerc:
Leopard 2:
The funny thing is that (at least for French and I’d imagine German) APFSDS should have a much easier time of going through the Abrams’ UFP like butter especially at range. In reality, French APFSDS could defeat armour angled at incidences greater than 80°:
So yeah, shitty design.
No one is asking the Abrams to be better than anything else or OP;
We only ask for it not to be artificially nerfed and neglected.
4/6 you can compensate with hull down position and abrams have the same problem, 1/6 any tank have basically same breech weakspot (include abrams here too) , 1/6 tank have the same ring problem (2 japan tanks vs 5 USA tanks with this problem).
abrams have all of this 6/6 problems
And you can address this problems in theirs respective topics (if they dont existis, you can create then). Im not against fix other tanks, but i can only talk where i have experience (and this is is a USA topic if im not wrong)
Theres more than 2 Type 10s.
Regardless of how many of each tank there are. Type10/90 have just as bad turret ring problem as the Abrams.
So, open a topic for japan or open a issue ticket for this too, again, im not against fix other tanks. but this is a USA topic and i want to they fix abrams turret ring.
comparing other nations tanks to try to dissuade a request to fix the abrams is just bad behavior in my point of view. If you have a problem with other nations, complain too, ask them to fix it too. No one is stopping you
I never made any such claim.
Don’t strawman me, otherwise I’m just going to perma-block you as you’ve done this countless times in the past, and quite frankly I’m getting a bit tired of it.
I said that someone like DEFYN or Cavenub have a better understanding of game balance than the average player does.
I also said that a majority of M1 complaints come from players who main USA and believe grass is always greener on the other side. Feel free to check the profiles of the people who post your average ‘‘M1 sucks’’ thread, both on Reddit and on here.
I also never said your opinion is invalid or that it’s inferior to mine.
Let me ask you the following question:
Do you believe the M1A2 SEP is inferior to a Leclerc, AZUR, SXXI, Leopard 2A5, 2A6, PSO, ZTZ-99A, Merkava Mk 4M, 4B, Ariete, AMV, PSO, WAR, Type 10, TKX, Challenger 2, 2 (2F), OES, TES, Black Night, 2E, Challenger 3TD, WZ1001, VT4A1 or T-90M?
I agree that the M1A2 SEP isn’t a top 3 tank, but none of the ones I just mentioned are. That doesn’t mean that any tank which falls below the top 3 is automatically bad or cannot compete.
You’ve seen me say that the M1A2 SEP v3 should’ve been added so many times now that you must think me a broken record.
???
What’s that? Nobody hitting my turret ring because I’m playing hull-down?
Exactly, joder.
We can make, and I can participate in topics in regards to issues about the Leclercs, the Challengers, the Merkavas, the Leopards, the Chinese MBTs, the Type 10s… no one ever has any issue with any of that.
But DARE suggest that the Abrams has any sort of issue, and you get the same few users every single time coming in to make clear how perfectly fine and effective they think the Abrams tanks are and how bad “U.S mains” are even though most of the concerned users are multi/all nation players.
And hull down is the only real gameplay for abrams. CQB or plain terrain maps? Good luck, maybe stay 90% of the match behind an rock, such fun and competitive gameplay.
Meanwhile the T-90Ms, Leopard 2A7s and Strv 122s will be carelessly rushing towards you like headless chickens tanking shots unless you nail their tiny weakspots before they proceed to erase you from existence by shooting in your general direction.
And they will argument that abrams is good in CQB bc 5s reload, yeah, its good until you take ANY shot, ANYWHERE, and disable half of your tank and cant even fire back (since the hydraulic pump is literally in the CENTER OF THE TANK).
Dude posted some videos tanking zillions shots and none pen his abrams, that game is like 1 in 100000 to have this bad players trying to kill me. I also have a nuke in SEP v2, also 1 in 100000 i guess.
Can’t talk about the Chinese tanks because I don’t have first hand experience with them; and, unlike others, I don’t like making assumptions of matters I am not truly versed on.
Arietes… it’s obvious. But that’s on their designers. Arietes aren’t performing so poorly because of artificial nerfs; even if they were buffed beyond optimistic degrees, not much would change for them. If the Abrams was worse than EVEN the Arietes… that would be way too sad lmao.
Type 10 and TKX- maybe I am weird, but I genuinely prefer these to the Abrams and I consistently perform way better on them as well.
Leclercs- only their UFP artificial nerf is holding them back from being superior to the Abrams.
Merkavas- same story as the Leclercs. Even then, I love them; their survivability is actually quite trolly, excellent against C*S and Mk.4M is virtually immune to helicopters thanks to Trophy.
Challenger 2E- genuinely better. Same mobility, same rate of fire, better armor, spall liners, worse round barely makes any difference in Top Tier.
T-90M has extraordinary protection and survivability compared to the Abrams. I genuinely prefer it and yes, I consistently perform better on it too.
Not even top 5. It’s the definition of… average. Not great, not terrible. Not the best, not the worst… but it SHOULD be great, and it SHOULD be among the best, even if not the absolute best. It’s just sad how this tank is relegated to being “meh, at least it’s better than the Ariete and the Merkava” instead of being a tank worthy to be a 2A7V counterpart.
Do you honestly believe other nations can sit in the open and expect to do any better?
If you actually played other nations aside from America at Rank VIII, you’d know that isn’t true whatsoever. In fact, most MBTs belonging to other nations would fare even worse.
I actually posted numerous such videos, and those are just the recent examples I happened to have my recording software running on.
The fact that my M1’s are between a 5 - 1 and 6.5 - 1 K/D ratio should also tell you that this isn’t a ‘‘1 in 10 000’’ cherry-picked example.
You’ve got 127 battles in your T-90M and have died 140 times.
I’d love to know where this idea comes from that you’re just rolling forwards endlessly absorbing hits without consequence, because your stats sure don’t back that story up.
As I’m grinding the T-90M, it’s very clear that nobody has any real difficulties aiming and hitting the obvious weakspots, which more than not result in a one-hit-death.
And why should I expect otherwise when I myself never found it difficult to one-shot T-90M’s in my M1’s, Leo 2’s and Challenger 2’s?
Stock grind isn’t fun :P
The fact remains- my K/D in T-90M is positive and higher than the one I have on ANY Abrams variant (negative for the most part). That is what counts.
Me dying more times than battles I have only means I spawned lots of backups while stock-grinding it, I don’t even know what you are trying to do by bringing that up xD.
From one of the latest matches I could play with T-90M before mothballing it:
I just kept taking shots. EIGHT in total. One, another, another, another… half of them did not penetrate the armor; the other half didn’t even harm a crew member upon penetration. One of them was absorbed by the fuel tank/spall liner, the rest failed to deal any damage that could not be repaired. I single-handedly captured and maintained A and the whole West side of the map and survived the whole match:
If I could continue playing T-90M, my stats with it would only be better and better after every match. Sadly, I can’t play it anymore because I would be wasting the modification research bonuses.
As soon as I can play T-90M again, and since it would be spaded, I am confident I could get a 2.0 K/D with ease, just as I do on Leopard 2A7V and far higher than I could dream with any Abrams.
