Using YouTubers to balance games never works, that’s not a rabbit hole to go down.
2 Likes
???
I understand that y’all are not very happy about how the M1 performs in the game and that’s okay, you do have the right to complain, but what does this have to do with the discussion? At least try not to be wrong if you really want to go off-topic.
You are misusing stats.
Just because one person performs well, doesn’t mean it is good. If they perform worse relative to other tanks, it is a worse vehicle.
Well, I, as a mid-average person, perform worse on the M1A2 SEP (0.99) relative to:
T-80BVM: 1.25
Challenger 3 (TD): 1.21
T-90M: 1.17
Black Night: 1.16
Challenger 2E: 1.15
Merkava Mk.4: 1.15
Challenger 2 (2F): 1.09
Does that mean T-80BVM, Challenger 3 (TD), T-90M, Black Night, Challenger 2E, Merkava Mk.4 and Challenger 2 (2F) are better than M1A2 SEP, then?
And this is leaving aside the tanks I perform MUCH better on because they are objectively superior, such as Leopard 2A7V (2.0) or the Type 10s and Strv 122s (1.5 range). I only used other tanks that are considered to be mediocre or worse than the Abrams to make the point more interesting.
Everything I said was true. You can strike it out if you want, but the fact is Russia has to import electronics for their military vehicles, doesn’t produce a competitive automobile that is sold internationally, and that while airbus and boeing have huge backorders for airliners no airline is buying Russian aircraft (other than those with no choice)
The FMS numbers for Russia have been on a sharp decline since 2013. This is a fact.
This is just to demonstrate that Russian Equipment and Chinese Equipment overperforms in game. This is fine as it is a game. But requiring “accuracy” for NATO equipment when they are already artificially nerfed for the game is just silly.
1 Like
I crossed out Russia for a different reason there.
2 Likes
Countless tanks at top-tier have significantly worse protection and/or even larger and weaker weakspots than an M1 does.
Yet every. single. one. of those other MBT’s have significantly better stats than the M1.
Because he’s an excellent player?
But he’s clearly being held back by the Ariete being worse relative to other MBT’s, and the stats back that up.
It actually does if that player has a firm grasp on the game’s meta and plays every single nation, and thus can make an educated argument based on actual experience.
In contrast, about 80% of the M1 Abrams complaints come from people who main USA.
This narrative that you somehow become less credible in your arguments the better you are, is quite frankly silly to me.
Undoubtedly some of you here are also Counter Strike players, so I’ll pose the same challenge again: Who would be a better judge of the AWP balance? M0nesy or a random Gold Nova 2 player?
4 Likes
No other tank have this turret ring.
Because maybe it’s too tiring lost 70% of the matches? Or the game is balanced enough to have WR quite similar between nations regardless of the differences between them?
1 Like
AND, on top of that, a 370mm KE glacis.
T-90M: 780
Strv 122B+: 750
Strv 122B PLSS: 750
Strv 122A: 750
T-80BVM: 720
WZ1001(E)_LCT: 685
ZTZ99A: 685
Leopard 2A7HU: 670
Leopard 2A7V: 670
TKX: 595
Type 10: 575
Leclerc: 560 (and UFP should be too)
Challenger 2E: 555
Etc…
Etc…
Etc…
Abrams: 370 xdxdxd
Merkava Mk.4: 360
Ariete: 250
(I can’t wait for the “b-but the 38mm thick UFP sometimes bounces off perfectly flat shots!” argument now.)
As I said many times, I wouldn’t even mind so much the 2008 MBT that’s in service in 2024 to have the same armor as the 1979 first iteration of the MBT ever if at least the turret ring and fuel tank bulkheads thickness and geometries were correct. But not even that.
2 Likes
Wow.
Are you really trying to sell me on the idea that the M1 Abrams is unique in having a weakspot that’s penetrable to autocannons?
And I’m being generous here by limiting other nations’ weakspots to areas penetrable to a 30mm.
If I went up to 57mm the M1 would come off significantly better than a great many MBT’s at top tier.
And in case you’re curious, all of these tanks have superior stats to an M1.
In terms of overall weakspot sizes, the M1A2’s are still above average:
3 Likes
The LFP of the Leclerc is paper thin lol
The LFP is also paper and much bigger than the Abrams
Most of the issues with the Abrams hull armour stem from its shitty design. Take that up with GDLS.
3 Likes
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’’…
3 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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:
Spoiler
Leopard 2:
Spoiler
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.
1 Like
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.
5 Likes