The US literally collapsed in 1991 that’s why they have shit transmission and old ugly jets.
yeah the gulf war was just too much for them
1 Like
Damn, who took over ? Confederates or the Union ?
the british
1 Like
Makes sense why the Abrams is the worst tank in the game now, they suffer from the British treatment after all.
1 Like
yes, your equipment “never” survived such hits when there should have been nothing left of the tank, and you still managed to shoot back, and CIS players really play better than you
1 Like
That is incorrect. If you’re staying that you don’t believe there is nation bias than that is your opinion, not stating facts. There’s a difference. There is nothing Meta about the Abrams tank currently. When I’m hull down, if I’m not immediately one shorted by most opposing Russian tanks, then I’m immediately gun breeched. The tank is incredibly louder than the Russian turbine powered counterparts (which are silent most of the time). If you’ve ever been around the M1 series tanks, you’d know that an incredible percentage of the engine noise is directed out the rear. When the tank is facing you, there is hardly any noise produced, even up close. Yet the Russian turbine tanks are near silent at all ranges, even while rushing your position.
We’re all entitled to our own perceptions and opinions about the game, but neither are facts, so you’re incorrect sir.
If this post doesn’t get banned for hate speech, yet mine gets banned for using the word “moron”, than these moderators need some self reflecting …
What I believe is irrelevant, there is no nation bias regardless of what anyone believes.
The Abrams tanks are among the most mobile, their decently armored, they fire the best MBT round in the game out of the 2nd best gun for velocity, and their reload is 5.3 seconds with an expert crew.
All of that is meta.
Soviet tanks are immediately one-shot by Abrams, or gun breeched in the case of BVM.
Abrams is quieter than the T-80BVM, it’s only louder if you are sensitive to higher frequencies.
None of these are my opinion. Facts are not opinions no matter what you say.
The meta statement is based on players far more skilled than either of us.
1 Like
This is in fact, still your opinion. How do you not understand this? OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS, even if you feel strongly about them. I experience the EXACT opposite about the Abrams penetration effectiveness. You can spew your side the argument as much as you want but most USA mains experience the EXACT opposite. Opinions are not facts. Get it through your skull sir.
1 Like
@_Balls_of_Steel
Your post is claiming USA mains are terrible at the game. Skill based matters are not relevant.
Glad you agree with me that facts are not opinions.
1 Like
Where are you from where you’re lack of reading skills have led you to this conclusion? A player’s individual experience isn’t 100% tied to their skill level. If a round incorrectly penetrates their tank, when on paper it shouldn’t, then what the hell does that have to do with their skill level? You are very close-minded, and you should really be open for discussion on a forum instead of blaming every negative mark on skill level.
@_Balls_of_Steel
I never brought up skill, I’ve yet to blame skill.
The only posts in our discussion that brought up skill was this one:
Experience is personal, not objective.
Experience is a valuable thing for understanding peoples’ perspectives.
It is not the fact that cross-analysis provides.
1 Like
Once again, you both misunderstood my post, and fail to see how your own posts are mentioning a skill issue.
Here is your message by your own words:
“Your post is claiming USA mains are terrible at the game.”
My posts don’t suggest anything about USA mains being terrible at the game. YOU said that. You’re predetermined that most USA mains are terrible at the game. Like I said before, one person’s experience isn’t solely based on their skill level. You are a very close minded person. Why are you even part of this discussion if all you want to claim is the typical “skill issue” blaming?
Sounds like a skill issue since the stuart can front pen any M1 through the turret ring.
Yeah no thats not happening IRL
But still 3BM17 can still easily penetrate the side armor of all modern tanks including the M1 series so it can partially be chalked up to inferior tactics at play, the Iraqi military, in part due to coalition forcing such engagements, spent most of the war engaging coalition force in head on engagements which their armor just cannot really win, or defensive engagements which, once again, benefitted the long range weapons of the coalition and superior frontal protection of their armor.
It was fully before the proliferation of stand off PACT and NATO AT equipment as well, meaning that tanks and aircraft were the primary killers of tanks, not ATGMs and FPVs like today.
Hindsight is 20 20 in the end as well, the Iraqi military could have put up a far better fight for a number of reasons, but the coalition could have also fought far better as well, but equipment V equipment wise, the Iraqis had far more quantity over quality, but their quantity was not obsolete, inferior, but far from obsolete.
Wall of text comparison time
Frankly a good parallel could be made to the last battleship v battleship engagement in WW2, Kirishima VS USS Washington. Kirishima was a far older Kongo class battleship while Washington was one of the US’s new cutting edge fast battleships along with South Dakota who was present and being battered by Kirishima.
Kirishima was indeed quite inferior to Washington and South Dakota, yet, South Dakota, due to numerous issues and failures onboard, was nearly at the complete mercy of Kirishima, who, if allowed to continue engaging, could have critically damaged South Dakota, and she did deal substantial damage to her.
Meanwhile Washington, instead of arriving and engaging directly, took a moment to sneak into position nearby Kirishima, using her superior detection equipment and fire control to force an unwinnable engagement for Kirishima, and, that she did.
Had Washington been in the same position as South Dakota, Kirishima would have easily dealt the same damage to her, yet, through superior use of the ships systems and proper tactics, Washington was able to deliver an unstoppable uppercut to Kirishima which doomed her nearly instantly.
Tactics, skill, and most importantly, knowledge allowed Washington to dominate the engagement, not just tech.
So slower, much less maneuverable tanks should be expected to flank to have a remote chance of doing something useful ?
T-72 is inferior to the M1, let alone T-55s and T-62s.
1 Like
I call BS on the T-72 being inferior to the M1. I constantly get penned through anywhere on any of my M1 series tanks by T-72s and T-80s. Even when you check in armor test in the main menu, the armor on the M1 is superior. The in-game results show the M1 is nerfed heavily.
Dude I was talking about real life.
And yes, T-72A in game is pretty inferior to M1.
1 Like
Wanna play a game? Lets see how good actually russian main is. The last one russian main tried to gaslight me that i already played with him lmao
Ok? Let me know when you find russian main and you play with him and how it went
1 Like