lol china
You do realize the M1 Abrams is a vehicle that is 10 times more agile than any Russian tank? With a 10 times better gun handling? And of course - the much faster reload?
Good players will do better in the Abrams because the Abrams is an incomprehensibly better vehicle, but worse players THAT RELY ON ARMOR (not to say that the Abrams doesn’t have armor with its auto-ricochet UFP, ~400mm LFP with spall catching sides, and ~500mm cheeks) will do better in russian tanks.
Anyone that’s any good at the game will always pick the Abrams over an equivalent BR Russian tank.
1 Like
Comparing Strela with Roland shows that you have ZERO idea of the game.
The other examples are even more stupid than your roland strela comparison
1 Like
T80U and BVM says hello.
T73B3,T90M,2S38 and T80BVM has better gun handling.
İt doesnt have Spall liners and armored fuel tanks doesnt catch Spall every single time.
Good players will do better in any tank regardless of advantages or not.
Excuses excuses.
than Abrams?
5 Likes
Define agility smartass.
T80 is better then Abrams when it comes to acceleration and keeping its speed, Abrams is better when it comes to neutrel steering and reverse speed, also T80U has same amount of HP/T ratio compare to Abrams BVM’s one is really close and in practise you dont even feel the difference.
According to who, You? Thankfully your empty claims doesnt represent the truth.
İm not the one who claims China is the only revelant nation in this game while its nothing but mediocre at best, seems like you’re looking at mirror.
Gun depression has nothing do with Handling, handling includes Turret traverse and vertical speed.
İf you use this Logic every tank has Spall catching sides aka Fuel Tanks.
İn game they increase the amount of spall, but Chinese main like you wouldnt never know.
Good players will do better in every vehicle, cant expect you to understand tho considering you dont even know what you’re talking about.
Oh really? İm surprised you can even feel such a complex emotions considering you’re Chinese Fanboy.
İm French main btw, even this reply shows how arrogant and clueless you are ;)
1 Like
Vertical targeting speed is better on those tanks, another clueless person.
1 Like
Mutual agreement can be had in the fact that abrams has significantly worse armor profile frontally which significantly impairs the effectiveness of said vehicle.
1 Like
How does it “impair the effectiveness” when, for starters - the Abrams armor is NOT bad.
That’s an entire auto-ricochet zone on 50% of the hull and a mantlet weakspot no different than what Russian tanks have. And you’re getting FAR BETTER GUN HANDLING, AN IMPOSSIBLY FAST RELOAD FOR A BETTER SHELL THAN 3BM60, A REVERSE SPEED OVER 10 TIMES BETTER THAN A T-72 AND 4 TIMES BETTER THAN A T-80.
Quite literally, what else do you want?
You’re getting numerable advantages over russian t-72 bodykits, and armor that isn’t that much worse.
Do you just want the Abrams to have no weakspots at all? Impenetrable frontal armor everywhere while also getting all the advantages of Western tanks? Are you insane?
1 Like
Which is easy to avoid.
Which is expected and should be there.
Me mentioning abrams having worse armor profile does not mean that i want to change it to be impenetrable or better, i’m just stating an observation.
Your armor protection map doesn’t show this huge weakspot which lets you take out both gunner and commander without any difficult aiming. Huge, easy to hit, often easily availabe, sliding across the whole turret. Lets you pick out what you want. Russian tanks “equivalent” weakspot is significantly harder to hit, less reliable and often only takes out either commander or gunner (so the t80 can return fire anyway).
You can have an otherwise good tank but it becomes the least scary thing you have met on the battlefield when you can effortlessly just click that big spot and the tank becomes useless.
Harder to hit…? You do realize the BVM has the same turret ring weakspot, which is actually larger than that on the Abrams? You can easily go pixel-by-pixel and see this for yourself. The Abrams turret ring is not that big.
Like, you claim 50% of the hull of the Abrams is “easy to avoid”.
What do you think armor and weakspots are? Yeah, it’s “pretty easy” to avoid shooting the UFP on a Russian tank when the LFP and driver’s port are right there. Or mantlet.
Also, if the Abrams is using its -10 degrees of gun depression on a ridge, what do you think happens to its armor profile?
Again - what are you asking for? The Abrams turret ring is a small area that people can hit accurately just like how people can shoot the turret ring of the BVM, or the mantlet, or any other weakspot.
Also, you keep using the adjective “huge” for the turret ring?
The turret ring is NOT a big spot? And yeah, the Russian equivalent only takes out the commander or gunner… Because that’s how they’re built? There’s only 3 crew and the commander and gunner are on opposite sides while the commander sits right behind the gunner on the Abrams. That is how the Abrams works. That being a weakspot in the game is a consequence of its design.
1 Like
It is definetly easier to hit the weakspot on the abrams especially in majority of angles in combat. You also ignored the fact that even when you hit the t80bvm in the weakspot, often it can return fire anyway due to the placement of the crew.
It is definetly huge weakspot because it is easily availabe in this game, it is very easy to hit and it will take out both gunner and commander. Maybe in real life at 4km the weakspot wouldn’t be exactly “huge”.
Exactly, the t80bvm has it better on this because that is how they’re built
Many times the hull is not “automatic bounce”
Gotta remember that in real games we have variable elevation. A tank may work well on paper but be rather defensiveless in real life because the angles to force a ricochet don’t exist anymore.
T80bvm is more consistent on this.
No? I talked about it one sentence later…?
The weakspot is not huge. It’s just that weakspots are generally very easy to hit in War Thunder. The Abrams turret ring weakspot is clearly smaller than the BVMs - it being a more damaging penetration on the Abrams is due to how its designed as you agree with me here…:
But at the same time - BECAUSE of how the Abrams is built, it has advantages over the BVM which are the ones I’ve been talking about this whole time…
1 Like
“thats how it was built” doesn’t exactly imply that you agree, it only recognizes that this is a thing.
It is huge in the context of war thunder. It is very big for a game where you can aim on pixel basis.
So, do we give a point for t80 for being better on this one?
I’m just gonna focus on the only actual point of your post here:
Yes? The T-80BVM has better armor. And the Abrams has far better gun handling, reload speed and agility. I’m not arguing that the Abrams has better armor or equivalent armor to the BVM - but I am arguing that:
- The Abrams has DECENT armor for its BR.
- The Abrams has qualities that a good player will be able to utilize more effectively.
Which I think are two absolutely true statements.
2 Likes
Define decent
Already defined.
You’re also being facetious in your comparisons here:
As you’ve found pixel spots while raising the camera on purpose to produce a lower angle of attack than 81 degrees (auto ricochet). The constructional slope angle of the Abrams UFP is 83 degrees and the Abrams is a considerably taller tank than the Russian T-72/BVM:
On even ground, such as in CQC - the Abrams UFP is almost certainly going to produce an auto-ricochet. If you use terrain to hide your LFP or hull, your turret is tough. And if you utilize your gun depression and reverse speed on a ridge - you’re extremely tough. Especially with the reload speed, an incredible advantage over Russian vehicles.
As I’ve said, and what the entire crux of my arguments boils down to - is that the Abrams is a tank that will undoubtedly be preferred by a better player, as it allows for greater potential DUE to the way that IT, and Western vehicles in general, are designed.
Worse players that rely on armor more than anything will do better in Russian vehicles - because Russian vehicles have many flaws, such as their poor gun depression, their horrible transmissions (that were built small to keep a low profile) with no reverse gears, their poor reload speed and such. But they’ve got armor (of which most is single-use ERA as Russian tanks weren’t designed for prolonged combat, either).
Please do not start writing literal moments after I’ve written my post. You’ve clearly not read it closely and thought about it, did you?
You can’t ignore the fact that on maps the elevation is going to change. You have to compare tanks true to how they may present themselves on battlefield. Instead of raising the camera angle, i centered the camera on the bore of the gun on both tanks.
If we locked abrams out of any map area that made the armor not ricochet the round, you wouldn’t get anywhere with the tank. Your argument doesn’t apply outside of a very few select niche areas on the map.
1 Like
Premium plane vs stock …