That % shows how often one placed high on score board due to a higher mission score? imo it isn’t necessarily means one contributes to the team the most because that does not account for the expense one costs the team, one can placed higher than him with three deaths one or two kill assists than him having 2 kills 0 deaths 1 kill assist, that I believe would get you anywhere around 600 mission score. Getting that percentage higher isn’t harder (unless I understood it wrong), one just has to ditch their defensive playstyle and adopt a more aggressive playstyle by pushing a lot, which will also leads to dying more often so in a way it kind of pushes the match into an endurance match where we gave the enemies the ability to spawn more vehicles.
Playing on only favorable maps is still a form of stat padding though is it not ?
As an honest question do you think your KD would be where it is if you played on every map no matter what ?
The reason why I pointed this out is because those 2 stats did not line up with a player with a KD as high as his. His scores in both those metrics line up more with a 1 DL premium only player. I’ll take what he said at face value. But in short no if you’re naturally scoring around 600 mission score on average that is not good.
I don’t downplay 6.0 KDR, most people are struggling to even get 2.0 even I do, one can choose to only play maps that favor their vehicle attributes and playstyle and only pick full downtier matches, if one hadn’t had the knowledge and skills then he would still struggle to get even 2.0, I have a lot of campy vehicles like the chieftains mk10 and it’s 3.0 because I don’t ever push and never cap, because anytime I try to do it it’s 80% chance that I die due to how slow it is. Abrams can be benefit more playing this way after you ditched sun city, advance to the toilet or sweden, then we wouldn’t have so many threads complaining about the armor lol
But still, >5.0 kdr no matter how you try to downplay it, it’s freaking impressive, let’s just admit it.
No? I’ve never seen anyone care about the stats of the vehicle with which I do that (Pz.Kpfw III N, T-34E, Leopard 2K, M18, etc).
No?
Because that’s exactly how I play 98% of my vehicles, especially when grinding.
You’re turning this into 3bm60, my post SAID that the Russian turrets in game are stronger than the Abram’s and that’s complete bs.
DM 53 on the Leo2a7 can pen anywhere on the turret cheek of the SEP V2 from a slight angle yet the same scenario with the T90M you can’t pen anywhere on the main turret where the era is.
If you have sources that show the M1A2’s turret is significantly underperforming, please share them.
Keep in mind that the US Army Science Board seems to believe the M1A2 SEP v2 has inferior armour protection relative to a T-90(M?), and that the SEP v3 equalizes this field.
And from a gameplay perspective, the T-90M is already much, much worse than an M1A2 SEP in almost every category, at the very least it has an advantage in armour protection (which is still meaningless 70% of the time as it has the same weakspots any other Russian MBT does).
lol I don’t believe that for a second, if you had to sit in either tank and take an apfsds shell to the turret what one you be in? Russian tanks have mostly been junk from day 1 irl only hyped by propaganda, do you really think they could have that much protection in that tiny little turret? Just the composite in the Abram’s turret probably is half as thick as the entire T series turret, and depleted uranium doesn’t have its correct values in game.
But I guess for “balans” they need to artificially buff them.
“restoring the margin lost” doesn’t mean Russian armor is better, it just means that the margin between Russian and American tanks would be restored.
For example (a hyperbolic one), the Abrams could have had a 100x armor advantage to Russian tanks before the T-90M and T-14, but now only has a 98x advantage, so the SEPv3/4 makes it go back up to 100x.
Arguing with Necrons be like:
''The M1 program cannot match Russian innovation […] The T-14’s autoloader, unmanned robotic turret, crew protection advances, and more efficient main armament surpass U.S. tank developments. […]
‘’[…] One major difference between the armor past and current armor competitions: today there’s a question concerning the Russian ability to produce the T-14 in quantity, whereas there was no doubt that the Soviet Union had the resources to produce required quantities of their armor. Regardless, the Russians will attempt to apply as many of the relevant improvements as part of the T-14 program to their existing combat vehicle fleet, particularly the T-90.‘’
‘’[…] Overall, Russian tank modernization efforts and new systems developments are significantly
enhancing their capabilities compared to U.S. armored formations.‘’
Now, do I believe all of that? Not necessarily.
This might just be them being alarmist to help speed up developments that they deem necessary.
They also seem to believe the T-14 is a bigger player than it is in actuality.
This is just you having a anti-Soviet/Russian bias and being ignorant on the topic.
You also completely ignored what I said about the gameplay ramifications.
Going by available figures, the LoS thickness of both the M1A2’s turret and a T-90M’s turret are roughly equivalent.
I repeat: If you have sources that show otherwise, feel free to share them.
But given the fact that you ignored this the previous time, I’ll assume you have nothing and you’re merely spouting your own personal biases.
You’re also making it very evident that you don’t understand the basics related to this topic.
The whole reason why Soviet designs historically have had such impressive protection is exactly because of their small profile.
If the area that has to be protected is only half the size of another, that means you can apply twice the armour protection for equal weight. This is why Soviet composites were often extremely dense. They could afford such dense (and heavy) composites because the surface area was relatively small.
Here’s some interesting stuff for you to read:
This is the only one that seems to be suggesting that the T-14 surpasses US tank developments, although whether or not the “crew protection advances” include armor (rather than the restructuring of where the crew are located, spall liner advances, etc.) is up to debate.
''Russian tanks with improved APS and ERA are beginning to degrade the effectiveness of current U.S. KE and chemical energy (CE, or shaped charge) rounds, threatening the Army’s current overmatch in firepower. ‘’
Hinting strongly that the current M1 arsenal might not be fully able to negate modern and future Russian tanks equipped with next generation ERA, active protection systems and upgraded passive armours.
This paper is dated 2019, so I expect M829A4 to be in their minds with regards to that statement.
‘‘It must be the role of technology to provide weapons systems which render ineffective costly investment by our foes—not simply to try to match something the other fellow has just fielded.’’
Hinting that current upgrade programs are merely an equalizer, and not an overmatch which is desired.
Again, I don’t even care that much about the historical aspect in this particular discussion, my original point is that the Russian MBT’s at 11.7 sacrifice a great deal just for some gain in armour protection.
And now we have people complaining that these vehicles can’t be roflpenned?
So what exactly do they want? Do they really need their vehicles to have:
- Better overall mobility, especially in turning and reversing.
- Massively faster reload rate.
- Better gun depression.
- Better penetration.
- Better survivability.
- But also the ability to roflpen it’s opposition anywhere via massively nerfing all Russian armour protection?
This means that the Russians are just starting to degrade US rounds, not that the Russians are equal to the US in terms of armor or munitions.
I’d need to see the context for this one, they could be referring to wanting to ensure they continue their overmatch in technology.
-
The T-80BVM has better mobility than most top tiers in the game, and the T-90M is missing <10% compared to most other top tiers. The only real downside to Russian mobility is the reverse speed.
-
The T-80BVM has a 0.50 second worse reload than the 2A7V/HU and 122B+, and doesn’t need to even Ace the vehicle to have that. The T-90M is still better than some tanks without a maxed out crew and/or expert, and even then it’s only slower than most other tanks by a second or so.
-
For a lot of maps (especially the urban ones Gaijin keeps pushing), this doesn’t matter. If the maps become good again, this might be a significant factor.
-
Missing only ~50mm compared to most other top tiers (<8% compared to M829A2).
-
Russian tanks have better survivability compared to most other tanks, literally the only tank with better survivability are the 2A7V/HU and 122B+.
-
Russian tanks have some of the smallest weakspots in the game, only the 2A7V/HU and 122B+ beat them in that regard.
- Only forwards for the T-80BVM, and not even superior per se compared to quite a few other high tier tanks. T-90M just has embarrasingly awful mobility for a 11.7 tank. You also neglect to mention their lack of reverse turning and neutral steering.
- That’s plainly the difference between who gets the second shot off first. It’s really that simple. Also ignoring the Leclercs, Type 10’s, Type 90’s, all M1’s and a few light tanks with massively superior reload rates.
- The lack of gun depression is so harmful exactly because many current maps feature powerpositons where gun depression is needed. Many spots cannot be utilized by Russian MBT’s due to this limitation.
- That missing penetration makes the difference between being able to penetrate a whole host of areas, including but not limited to: Leclerc front plate, Challenger UFP, M1A2 angled cheeks, Leclerc turret cheeks,Type 10 UFP, Type 10 cheeks, Leopard 2A4M cheeks, Merkava Mk4 turret cheeks, and probably some more I’m forgetting.
- Lmao. 74% of the shots I take against Russian MBT’s are a one-hit-kill. If anyone struggles to one-shot these tanks at least semi-reliably, that’s their own fault. Similarly, playing these Russian tanks myself, people have no problems one-shotting them via the same well-known weakspots.
- Again, basically the only thing they have going for them, and it’s not even reliable. Far from it.
Do you subscribe to the russian propaganda news letter? The T14 is an unproven pos broke down nowhere to be found… “iNnOvAtIoN”
Why do you think the russians throw everything they have trying to kill western tanks in ukraine? its because they know that if they make contact with russian tanks it will be a slaughter.
- Every tank with better mobility has much, much, much worse armor. The T-90M is closer in mobility to the Abrams or 2A7s than the Abrams or 2A7s to the T-80BVM. The reverse turning or neutral steering isn’t what mobility means in most contexts (the ability to get to places/get around quickly).
- A 1.5 second faster reload rate when Aced is not a massively faster reload rate. Also, none of the tanks you mentioned have good armor.
- Which would matter more if most maps weren’t mostly urban and/or flat.
- Only the Challenger’s UFP and the Merkava’s cheeks had any notable difference between 3BM60 and M829A2, everything else was the same between the two rounds.
- Not getting penned is better than being penned and being completely helpless.
- Again, being much harder to pen is better than barely surviving being penned.
From playing the M1A2, the biggest issue is the hydraulic pump module. It’s basically impossible to return fire if you get hit.
No other tank has this issue. I find that the VAST majority of shots disable both your vertical and horizontal drives.
This single module makes it the most fragile top tier tank. Almost any penetrating hit will either kill or disable you completely.
Why are you comparing the KE protection of the Abrams to the CE protection of the T-90M?
Might want to post the correct screenshots to support your argument.