Not so sure about that part, to me both tanks sits at same place.
One thing for sure that Abrams is better then Merkava and Ariete.
1 Like
Yes, the Abrams is extra strong in its strong points, such as the 5s reload and good round, but as said by you, its far less forgiving, and the mistake of being seen, even, is already a high chance that you will die, due to the lack of any hull armor whatsoever. The BVM is easily counterable, but it is more difficult than others, and when played well, it easily outshines anything else, unless the enemy is more experienced than your average top tier player. Both are incredible, one just does it easier, whereas the other does it better, but it takes more time and skill.
1 Like
Agreed! The Abrams and the Leclercs are practically 1:1 analogues as of now; none has a large strength or weakness compared to the other.
When Leclerc’s UFP and acceleration are fixed, it will become way better than the currently ingame Abrams tanks, in my opinion! Even with the less penning shell, yes, since 90% of the times you aim at the same weakspots anyway.
2 Likes
This is true for the most part, only difference being that I believe the BVM is easy to use, but a little more difficult to do very good in. Not hard, but more difficult. Apart from that, I agree for everything else. The Abrams’ has its place in which it does super well, but it requires more skill than what your typical top tier player can give without constantly learning.
1 Like
We point out the KD of bad players, we point out the KD of people outside the curve. The balance should be for the average and not for the top or bottom 1%.
That is how high skill ceiling works
Can we stop using Ariete as an example now that Italy has 2a7HU?
I believe the Abrams has a + point in its stronger turret, whereas the Leclerc has a + point in it’s autoloader, which allows a consistent and guaranteed 5s reload, whereas the Abrams’ requires an aced crew, and even then, can still lose that good reload speed the moment your loader dies, a problem which the Leclerc doesn’t face. The Leclerc, however, is just like the Abrams’, in which it is unforgiving, and very punishing for the slightest mistakes. Both are amazing in a good players hands, but bad for anyone who is just starting, or is very average at top tier.
Aw shit why’d you say this? now Necrons is gonna show up with his poorly-made UFP video
2 Likes
No, because the Ariete is still a top tier tank, lol
1 Like
I totally forgot that.
I’ve seen people say almost exactly what I said in a conversation earlier in this thread.
Minor spelling mistake.
It’s funny to see people complain about the Abrams’ hull, then proceeding to prove it by shooting the UFP at an incline, to make it even more of a ricochet. Just shoot the LFP or the turret ring and it’ll rot away.
2 Likes
I would say each has better/worse armor depending on the opponent!
For example;
Leclerc has better armor against Russian, British and Chinese MBTs; because all of its composite (save for the broken UFP) is capable of withstanding 3BM60, L27A1 and DTC-10;
However, the Abrams has better armor against German MBTs; because, while its hull composite is useless, the turret armor is capable of withstanding DM53, unlike Leclerc’s armor.
If it’s about Leclerc vs Abrams, Abrams wins; because M829A2 can pen all of Leclerc’s armor, while Leclerc can’t pen the cheeks of the Abrams.
Basically, Leclerc’s composite armor is more “evenly distributed” between the hull and the turret, allowing it to withstand <570mm pen shells all around, while the Abrams is an ALL (turret) or NOTHING (hull) thing that does not allow it to take anything on the hull, but allows it to take anything on the turret.
1 Like
Because its actually a mathematical thing dude: trimmed mean
Ad hominem at its glory
I will not respond in a genuine manner if someone calls me a dumbass.
bc you cant, simple
What do you mean by that? What is “seeing that way?”
I agree. But that shouldn’t discredit the opinions of good players.
I mean that if your problem with us is the fact that we point out that we shouldn’t use the stats of the top 1% of players, I think you might have a problem. Maybe I’m a bit pissed off at the moment, but it’s to raise the point that even if someone brings up some player that is super mega good at some specific tank, that’s irrelevant to balancing
Considering what I said earlier, yes, I agree that experienced people should have their messages more relevant, but not their status (and clearly not their opinions when not considering the balance for the average). I see this a lot in CS, I’ve been playing CS since 1.6 and the weapons are practically the same since then. Any change doesn’t exactly affect the fundamentals of the weapon, but rather its details (maybe in an update it changes from water to wine, but it’s not common) and we have a game that exists MAJORS that the weapons are NOT balanced bc the world winners.
Only if their opinions are genuine and impartial, though.
However, sometimes it’s not the case:
-Some good players like to humble-brag by attributing their extraordinary performances to certain vehicles instead of their own personal skill levels, in hopes of receiving comments made by other people to deconstruct their fallacies by pointing out that their performance is to be attributed to their skill and not the vehicle, therefore fueling their desire to be acknowledged as the pros that they are.
-Other good players simply have a clearly defined bias and use their “good player” status to push their perspectives under the authority figure that being a good player gives them.
So it is important to be able to tell when someone’s opinion is genuine, and when it’s not.
It’s usually easy to tell; if the player is toxic towards anyone who disagrees… it’s normally not a genuine opinion.
6 Likes
One day I’ll be able to put my thoughts into words in a decent way like you, thanks for the help
1 Like