Dude’s just trying to get a rise out of you because he can’t actually contribute to the discussion. Just throw him on block and leave it at that. Not worth the energy.
4 Likes
You’re not different then people who claims Leclerc’s are “fine” because some of them managed to get 6K/D ratio in that tank.
Its obvious arguing with you is pointless because all you’re saying is basically gid gud while constantly ignoring those Tanks main problems.
But if you buff the said vehicle, they will have 9K/D?
Jesus christ this getting more and more hopeless with every minute.
You do you bro, its obvious arguing with you will be nothing but waste of time for me cause i cant take someone words seriously when all he’s talking is some exceptional players Service Records and uses them as an excuse to justfiy why those Tanks shouldnt recieve any fixes.
Also the M1 is fine where it’s at in all iterations. It’s the issue of players seeing the Battle of '73 Eastings on the history channel in the 2000’s and thinking the M1 Abrahams is invincible, similar to those pesky German players. Don’t balance vehicles based on poor play performance, balance it based on vehicle performance.
1 Like
The tanks at 73 Easting were M1A1 HCs, and no one has ever claimed that M1A1 HC is modelled wrong ingame, except for the universal turret ring.
These threads are fundamentally about M1A2 SEPv2 and a potentially upcoming SEPv3…
And no, no one wants the “Abrahams” to be invincible; only to have the issues addressed, such as the proven turret ring related one, again, not expecting it to be “invincible”; just correct.
3 Likes
Completely missed my point, excellent job. I see your cognitive function is about as good as your ability to pass as a female.
The tanks at 73 Easting were M1A1 HCs, and no one has ever claimed that M1A1 HC is modelled wrong ingame, except for the universal turret ring.
I wasn’t referencing the battle as a point of fact for the vehicles in game, I was stating that people often times misunderstand armor and it’s capabilities due to propaganda, a skewed view of history or just their own personal bias. Which immediately after bringing up the M1, I mentioned those German players, you know? The ones that don’t angle their Tigers or do angle their Panthers? I don’t see how you managed to misconstrue that but exceptional undertaking nonetheless.
These threads are fundamentally about M1A2 SEPv2 and a potentially upcoming SEPv3…
What was that I said about all iterations of the M1?
And no, no one wants the “Abrahams” to be invincible; only to have the issues addressed, such as the proven turret ring related one, again, not expecting it to be “invincible”; just correct.
I’d love to see where I said someone did want that, I already cleared this up earlier in the post.
You fundamentally misunderstand the point I’m trying to make then bring up irrelevant points in an attempt to save face so I’ll make it easier.
The problem lies within the players, not the vehicles. When you balance these vehicles based on their own performance and statistics there is no fundamental problem. But as soon as you balance these vehicles based on players’ performance there’s a huge discrepancy. We wonder why that is?
2 Likes
Bruh.
Oh look, Another reddit-tier derailer.
How could I not have seen that coming?
/s
2 Likes
Anyways, where were we…
What part of the Abrams were we going over again?
1 Like
-Turret Ring
-Underperforming Turret Side Armor
-Mislocated Hydraulic Pump
-Wrong Bulkhead Thickness
-Possible Spall Liners
These are the things i can remember, feel free to add.
4 Likes
The M1 does not have a spall liner.
1 Like
Oh, this is new to me!
Engine noise
I want to say TVD but I could be wrong on that.
Shell loadouts are wrong iirc, as well.
And I think that covers it all - For now. -
1 Like
Iirc there’s a screenshot somewhere in this thread that puts the hydraulic pump on the side of the Abrams by the gunner under the turret ring.
It appears Gaijin cant even model basic things accurately when it comes to Abrams.
2 Likes
Who need tanks, when you can bomb them
It does not have traditional spall liners as in a layer on top of the base armor (it was studied but deemed to be too heavy); but it presumably has some form of internal inserts that should reduce spalling in some fashion, some refer to them as “internal spall liners” although that terminology is probably not entirely correct.
These are referenced, if I recall correctly, even on the first declassified Abrams protection document.
3 Likes