The T-90MA is not a favored vehicle by the community and is widely regarded as a mediocre vehicle. The Abrams is widely regarded with significantly higher praise, therefor it is the higher-value tank that players seek out. Even without the influx of high-performance players on the new Abrams, the T-90MA isn’t as good as the SEPv2 Trophy in most engagements.
Abrams is the only tank that is able to peek as such from behind cover
while being completely immune to any critical internal damage.
Getting set on fire does not halt your movement or reload, you still have around 20s before the fire becomes an issue (that means you’re able to fire 5 shots in ideal conditions) so you’re still able to use the full potential of the tank
That is a very simplistic view which doesn’t address things like fuel explosions and said volumetric randomness.
Assuming backups that means every vehicle spawn results in 1.25 non penetrating hits to the side (while this is already suspicious in my experience, let’s continue).
If we assume that every vehicle spawn results in the vehicle eventually getting destroyed (not a given but let’s make the odds better for you), assuming 25% of penetrating hits don’t kill you outright, we can calculate that, according to your claim, roughly 48% of side shots fired at a T-80UD do 0 damage.
That is an ALARMING number which i find really hard to believe, surely the math must be wrong.
If we assume that 40% of penetrating hits don’t result in getting killed, that’s still a roughly 40% chance of a side shot doing nothing.
You’re either the luckiest person on this planet or you’re making things up for the sake of your argument
1 Like
The argument here is that release statistics being noticeably better than continuous statistics is something we can see in most vehicles so surely this includes the mediocre T-90M Arena since being mediocre means that it’s not going to be actively avoided for being bad.
Since that didn’t happen there’s something wrong with the original train of thought (Both that the T-90M Arena is mediocre instead of utter dogshit and that the Abrams has such good statistics due to the players and not due to both the players and being the best MBT in game)
1 Like
In case you’re wondering about how the math works:
N = no damage
C = crit
K = kill
Since 1.25 shots per vehicle life do nothing => N : K = 5 : 4
Since 25% of penetrating shots result in a crit => C : K = 1 : 3
Now to find a common multiple:
5 : 4 = 15 : 12
1 : 3 = 4 : 12
This results in a N, C, K ratio of 15 : 4 : 12 meaning that 15/31 = ~48% chance of N
1 Like
At this point, you’re just grasping at straws. You don’t gain anything from this peek, and the enemy will just shoot your track, which is dangerous to lose in a corner fight.
Outside of the Leclerc, fuel explosions are practically unheard of. They do occasionally occur once in a blue moon, but it’s not an actual issue for most tanks. Furthermore, what I showed you IS a problem because a 10-20mm plate isn’t generating hundreds of metal fragments from a hole that small.
Just call me a liar, man. All I gotta do is dig myself a hull-down at range to become immortal in a T-80UD for most tanks of the BR.
You can just not speak about your math when I get away with playing the UD like this.
Yep.
Yep.
Consult the video.
1 Like
Me when I lie
CRDS Shoots the UFP
Bradley then kills your commander frontally with a 25mm
120S fires a HEAT into ERA
M247 tries to penetrate the gunner sight instead of shooting your barrel
2A4 is the first person to actually aim and kills you easily
Congrats on facing 4 people that don’t know how to aim?
Correction, 3, the bradley aimed well just a shit tank
2 Likes
Tell that to the CV90105 on Maginot that fired about 20 rounds at me, stationary in my hull-down. Gaps in armor obviously exist, but they’re not the easiest to hit at a thousand meters consistently, and up close, they become hard to track, and ping loves to mingle with volumetric.
But sure, I can’t show you that one simply because I only recorded the F-104 trying to sneak up on my Tunguska and the major dropped, so a replay doesn’t exist.
Goalposts are moving a lot today, huh? Not at all an issue that I can just W key into a spawn at the start of a match with consistent durability while shredding a defensive Challenger, 120S, and Bradley?
Furthermore, the Leopard lived based on volumetric shittery, which is the entire point I’m making. If his mantlet didn’t randomly eat damage it shouldn’t because of a weld edge, he would have just pushed a T-80UD side on and died.
1 Like
Tell that to me that managed to hit this once at 3.5km. It’s so incredible when we just use single occasion anecdotal evidence, isn’t it
Yes so, your push is significant because you got lucky but the Leopard getting lucky and killing you (the EXACT same thing) somehow isn’t significant?
1 Like
“once”
You just proved me right by stating you got it once. If it happened to you once in your total amount of games, then it isn’t likely to happen lol
“lucky,” and it’s basically every game. Just say you want the T-80UD to bully every other 10.7 in the game, man.
For me, I shot the Leopard 2 in a known Volumetic Black Hole like a moron. The other tanks fired on my side and front while I rushed them like a chicken with my head cut off. If a Leopard or Abrams was in the same scenario, could you honestly say it would be capable of the same thing?
I really wonder what’s the significance of “at 3.5km”. I REALLY wonder
“I rushed a shot and got punished for it, they rushed a shot and got punished for it but it’s different. This happens every game btw”
2 Likes
Dispersion and optic zoom imply nothing but luck with that shot, which, using your own logic of “no clip = fabricated story”, why should I believe you?
7 kills for rushing an enemy line at the start of a game is so punishing. I feel so distraught at not getting 8.
“If I don’t reply with words, the question will simply go away”
3 Likes
Bold claim from the one not posting the clip of surviving 20 shots from a CV90105.
The goal is to imply luck because that shows that luck can both help you hit (my anecdote) or survive (your anecdote) shots
How do the 7 previous kills affect your engagement with the Leopard? Did you have no ammo? Was your tank crippled? Were you unable to react properly in time? Neither of these are true, the previous kills had close to no impact on how that 1v1 went
“I can use a well known response that fits this scenario very well because the other person will understand it and I won’t have to spend time explaining it in detail” but since you’re unwilling to do that:
T-80UD and 2A4 / M1 are very different tanks, they play differently due to their different strengths and weaknesses. A 2A4 / M1 would most likely not survive the UFP shot by the CRDS etc. etc…
A T-80UD wouldn’t be able to play the left side of the map very effectively due to not having gun depression and reverse speed.
1 Like
It’s a question, not a claim.
The accuracy and dispersion part is a fact.
I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this. You just said that I lied because you can easily hit the roof optic, but now you’re saying that it requires luck?
I messed up a shot because I have a disability. Thanks.
I never stated they weren’t. The point of this is that the heavy ERA shouldn’t be eating rounds to the side, which it does.
Furthermore, is your claim that the T-80UD is good at blindly rushing an enemy line? Cause if that’s the case, it needs a nerf, no?
That wasn’t the original claim. The issue here is the ERA. My issue, across all of my posts here, has always been about the ERA.
You can assert a claim via a question, they are not mutually exclusive.
You need luck to hit it at 3.5km, yes. You don’t need luck to hit it at 100m.
Congrats on your disability, I’ve got a cracked bone in my left thumb. None of this is relevant.
Yes, we’re in agreement. The issue is that you claim this is more common than it actually is. The only shot to the side in that video was from the 120S that fired HEAT into your ERA. I believe that the ERA should stop that.
I have never claimed that, I only claimed that the T-80UD has better UFP and side ERA armor which allowed it to survive the CRDS shot to said UFP and the 120S HEAT to the side.
Okay?
1 Like
Abrams fuel tanks are external, they do not set you on fire, nor require the use of FPE.
It’s been that way for years and years now.
1 Like
Thank you.
Could you please share the mobility chart with me, i lost the link when moving to a new PC
1 Like
3 Likes
Do you even know how fuel explosions work? The higher your vitality and crew qualification, the lower the chance of your fuel tanks exploding/increases the chance of crew surviving even if they do.
Protected fuel tanks… protect your crew from harm, and do not cause fires you have to use an extinguisher on.
Besides that, example of corner baiting with Abrams LFP:
2 Likes
And I’ve gotten away in scenarios like this with Leos for example. You bounced 2 shots from an MBT, some autocannon rounds, and the York can’t even pen barrels. Not exactly spectacular.
Wait, for real?