Because thats the only spot he had exposed to me and i was able to hit while he was moving?
I play primarily as the US, and we only have 2-4 wins out of 10 battles. Mostly losses. And you want to weaken an already weak nation in the game even further? For what purpose? The M1A1 is clearly no match for the Challenger, because the Challenger won’t have problems with the Abrams, but with the T-90 and Leopard, which it won’t be able to penetrate at all.
And this isn’t a coincidence; it happens all the time. You can’t even penetrate a Soviet tank’s gun mantlet with your shell.
How do you expect to hit/penetrete the mantlet, when the shell is hiting the gun it self?
That’s the whole problem with Soviet tanks. They have too many nuances. There’s a very small gap, just millimeters, between the gun mantlet and the tank’s hull. And you have to hit that. The same goes for the space between the turrets; it’s very difficult to penetrate. So it turns out that a Soviet tank with a Battle Rating of 11.7 is practically invulnerable if its lower front plate is covered.
It’s very difficult to target all these weak areas.
Are we playing the same game? Pritty much the whole area between the gun and the ERA plates on the cheeks is easy to penetrete with 120 mm shell (at 10.7+)… and usually results in minimum 1 crew dead + damaged breach/autoloader (or bouth), if not out-right killing the tank.
At the same time, the T-80 UE 1 can simply fire at the Abrams’ silhouette and destroy it.
That’s why the US has the lowest win rate in the game. It’s unrealistic to successfully play a vehicle with an 80% penetration rate in silhouette against one with only 1% of weak points.
1 Like
You see, here’s the thing. We’re not playing turn-based battles, after all. You have a split-second shot; you don’t have time to aim for weak spots. You fire toward the gun mantlet, and at that moment, the enemy tank rotates its turret slightly, moves away a bit, and you miss that tiny gap.
No. The breech of the tank is undamaged 90% of the time. It may turn yellow, but it doesn’t turn black.
No offence, but my experience lately with US (and in 10.7 to 12.7 BR against russian tanks) differ greatly… and I can’t agree with you.
Same tier as POS like Challenger if you ask me but unlike Challenger enemy can kill you anywhere it hit.
Send me a replay in 12.0 against Soviet tanks in an Abrams. I want to watch it. I’ve been wanting to see a successful game with M1A2 Abrams against Soviet tanks for a long time.
I’d rather take Type 10 and TKX than M1A2 lol
2 Likes
We just need better reload modeling. Manual loading needs drawbacks that balance out their shooting range record times…
Otherwise its 5 second robot reload
I mean you can have 5 seconds
But only first 5 shots before fatigue
Stationary
With 24/7 open ammo door
All of these is ignored in wt.
1 Like
If long before is 1 small update, then sure? Also, the Aim-54 then was worse than it was today somehow, not even being able to loft. The ER was by far the better BVR missile unfortunately.
Because of this, we’ll have to rework the entire reloading mechanics on all tanks. Now introduce the loader on the KV-2. I think after the second shell, he’ll run out of steam and go drink beer.
Jesus just imagine the Sturmtiger and FV4005, they’d never get a reload in before the match ended if fatigue was a thing
1 Like
Yeah, that could work. Alternatively, Ive always just wondered if manual loaders should get a better fire rate when stationary compared to an autoloader, but worse when moving.
As that seems to be quite common in the videos ive seen.
But 3 stage ammo would work quite well too.
Though Britain is already forced into that. With only 4 rounds at max speed and then the rest much slower, despite having a 20+ round ready rack
You probably going to wait for many years to get SEP V3 but in BF 6 you can get SEPV3 right now.