M1a2s at top tier

[Selasco]

@Necrons31467

@Selasco_

No other tank have this shit turret ring.

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)

[RemoveCASfromGRB]

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.

[Selasco]

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

[Necrons31467]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Yet your opinion is more valid

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.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Except for me and all those who agree that the Abrams is not all that excellent right now, apparently.

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.

@Selasco_

4/6 you can compensate with hull down position

???

What’s that? Nobody hitting my turret ring because I’m playing hull-down?

M1 Taking Hits #4

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@Selasco_

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.

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.

[Selasco]

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.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

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.

[Selasco]

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.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@Necrons31467

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?

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.

@Necrons31467

I agree that the M1A2 SEP isn’t a top 3 tank

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.

[Necrons31467]

@Selasco_

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.

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.

@Selasco_

Dude posted some videos tanking zillions shots and none pen his abrams

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.

[Necrons31467]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

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.

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?

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@Necrons31467

You’ve got 127 battles in your T-90M and have died 140 times.

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.

@Necrons31467

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.

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.

[БрИт4нСкUй_П0дС0С]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

The fact remains- my K/D in T-90M is positive and higher than the one I have on ANY Abrams variant. That is what counts.

Facts are good. Facts are important.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

SEPv2’s are positive, but in a way too small pool.

M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A1 AIM… the ones I actually and currently use on my lineup, all <1.0.

I used SEPv2 only for a few days after the major update before I mothballed it. As soon as I pick it up again (same situation as T-90M, can’t play it for now), I am sure it will be going down like the rest of the Abrams on my lineup.

[AlvisWisla]

@Selasco_

comparing other nations tanks to try to dissuade a request to fix the abrams is just bad behavior

No one here did this unless you’re speaking about yourself.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

Everyone does it when it comes to the Abrams.

As I said earlier:

@SPANISH_AVENGER

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.

You can’t try to bring up any Abrams-related issue without someone bursting in saying that it’s perfectly fine and there is nothing to address because the Ariete suffers more and whatever. It’s like clockwork.

There is not A SINGLE Abrams-related thread that wasn’t invaded by this behaviour. And that’s something I have only seen against the Abrams on this Forum.

Asking to buff Leopard 2A7V’s hull from 670mm KE to 750mm KE is perfectly fine for everyone.
Asking to address any Abrams-related issue results on every thread to end up the same way.

It’s always the exact same story. You will never see such fierce opposition to address any issue related to any other tank. Only the Abrams.

And the reason why I dislike this behaviour so much it’s because, at the end of the day, it’s born from the notion that “anyone who plays U.S just happens to be bad” and that “it’s a skill issue”, so, in a way, elitism.

[Selasco]

@Necrons31467

AGAIN, if you have problem with other tanks, go and open topics and tickets for fix then. This arguments “OtHeRs TaNkS” just shows that other tanks also have problems (some some similar problems with abrams) and im REALLY not against fix then too. But you are not really interest in that (or you would be doing that what I said), you just want dissuade the arguments to fix the abrams.

[Selasco]

ill take this low effort bait. Every time over and over ppl bring other tanks in a USA topic, but hey, im that only post in USA topics here that are bring other nations and tanks in this conversation “Their are bad so abrams should be bad too :sob:”.

[jspene]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Leclercs- only their UFP artificial nerf is holding them back from being superior to the Abrams.

Uh, no. Same reload, same mobility (for S2/SXXI/AZUR), worse armor, WAYYY worse round. OFL 120 F1 is the worst top tier round, only having 4kg projectile mass and 2nd lowest pen. Leclerc is worse than Abrams.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

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.

At best Merkava is a sidegrade of Abrams, but in my opinion it’s worse due to the lack of gun depression, engine being at the front, and 6 second reload. It does have a better reverse speed, though.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

Challenger 2E- genuinely better. Same mobility, same rate of fire, better armor, spall liners, worse round barely makes any difference in Top Tier

MUCH worse round (on par with the aforementioned OFL 120 F1), tiny ready rack, no blowout panels, what world do you live in where Chally has better armor than Abrams? Abrams has bigger turret cheeks, smaller mantlet, and good enough LFP armor (enough to stop autocannons).

It doesn’t have turret ring weak spot but it has the entire hull to worry about as a trade. And as I said worse turret armor.

The spall liner point is fair but keep in mind the Challenger 2’s spall liner is crap in terms of coverage.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

T-90M has extraordinary protection and survivability compared to the Abrams. I genuinely prefer it and yes, I consistently perform better on it too.

Meh, Russian MBTs aren’t as comparable to the Abrams as NATO MBTs are, which is why I don’t usually compare them or I’ll say “Abrams is X best NATO MBT” instead.

T-90M trades armor for absolutely everything else compared to Abrams. Worse round, worse reload, worse mobility forward, worse mobility in reverse, etc.

Russian tanks in general are just easier to play poorly and are more forgiving for bad players, but keep in mind that armor is a crutch for playing poorly, not something that will always save you or that will benefit a good player.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@jspene

Uh, no. Same reload, same mobility (for S2/SXXI/AZUR), worse armor,

And as I said, the worse armor because of the underperforming/nerfed UFP is what’s golding it back. Also, Leclerc has a permanent 5 second reload while the Abrams is 5.3 for Expert + Full; it’s only the same once Aced, a rare occurrence; and even then, a harmed and knocked out loader leads to slower rate of fire, while the autoloader will always be as fast. Pros and cons, wouldn’t say one is better than the other, there.

I know many people, VERY good players at that, who prefer the Leclercs over the Abrams. I prefer the Abrams, but, as I said, only because of Leclerc’s issues that I also advocate to have fixed.

@jspene

At best Merkava is a sidegrade of Abrams, but in my opinion it’s worse due to the lack of gun depression, engine being at the front, and 6 second reload. It does have a better reverse speed, though.

Same feeling here. Abrams, Leclerc and Merkava are kinda sidegrades. They are the absolute average tanks; not great, not terrible. The shame is- they SHOULD be great. But they are not… because of ingame issues that many of us want to have fixed.

@jspene

what world do you live in where Chally has better armor than Abrams?

I don’t know, but I find 560mm KE to be kinda better than 370mm KE. Challenger 2’s glacis often eats shots (even DM53 depending on the range and angle), and, when it doesn’t, it’s coated in spall liners that increase its survivability, unlike the Abrams.

@jspene

The spall liner point is fair but keep in mind the Challenger 2’s spall liner is crap in terms of coverage.

Missing LFP, reported, hope it’s fixed. Because I want the issues of every MBT ingame to be addressed and corrected.

@jspene

Russian tanks in general are just easier to play poorly and are more forgiving for bad players

And that’s exactly why I consider them to be better, ALTHOUGH not by a large margin anymore.

If a tank requires you to give your 110% to perform well with it, while another tank requires you to give barely your 50% to perform just about as well… then the latter is the better one in general, save for the top players who can make the best use of the other tank because their raw skill offsets the clear weaknesses.