T-90M with arena aps? Do you think this should be added to the game?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
21

I don’t care.

Exactly why the addition of armor is even more fine.

Let me explain this clearly for you:

Since the design for the Abrams it to be hull down, the vehcile won’t be used much in a mobilility

Since the vehicle isn’t going to be used much for mobility, adding more armor for the weight that is already goinging to be present regardless if the armor is present or not makes no difference.

Adding a vehicle with increased weight and no further changes except being a copy and paste is unacceptable. Why? The weight must equate to something. And if the weight is going to stay, then there must be addition of either armor or relavent systems that increase performance of the Abrams.

22

You may not care, but that doesn’t change the fact that War Thunder’s meta largely revolves around having excellent mobility.

IRL or in-game?

  • IRL that wouldn’t be true, it’s a common myth that the Abrams was supposedly designed to sit back behind hills at all times.
  • In-game it’s partially true. Many powerpositions do indeed involve hull-down spots, but to reach these powerpositions before opponents do you need to have excellent mobility.

That’s just the player using the Abrams poorly/not utilizing it’s full potential.

None of this relates to what I said.

I explained that there would not be a noticeable difference in protection, because even if the SEP v3 has improved turret armour, it wouldn’t matter given that the current base model M1A2 is already immune to any APFSDS at 12.7 head-on.

2 Likes
23

BRUH, you’ve been corrected so many times on that yet you keep pushing this lie. Absolutely unreal.

The added armor will make the mantlet weakspot smaller since the mantlet weakspot slightly extend into the turret. Furthermore, the improved turret armor should also make the little triangle areas at the bottom mantlet corner of each cheek from pennable to non-pen.

The SEP v3 literally uses improved thermal compared to the SEP v2, just not Gen 3. Gen 2+ exists in the game, though only on helicopters and maybe targeting pod at the moment. This could be given to the SEP v3 to represent the bridge between Gen 2 and Gen 3.

1 Like
24

No, that’s just your opinion. There are players who play different from that.

Both.

In game it’s hull armor cannot withstand any round in top teir.

IRL, myth or not it’s always been within hull down positions. Wartime, it has evidently not been. All NATO tanks, Abrams being apart of it, are designed for hull down. Hence why you see the depression being more prevalent than in Eastern vehicles.

Again, like you said, it’s up to the player. Therefore, weather you play it as a mobile vehicle or not, is up to you.

You aren’t going to see abrams being used for mobility like T-Series vehicles or leopards. Main difference is armor, hence why you’ll see the abrams hiding in places and poking out to re-engage.

It actually relates directly which you’ve been ignorant of. My argument was not based off of if armor is needed or not. I’ve already explained that additonal weight should add armor regardless if the armor is enough. If the armor is “pointless” and the mobility is worse then the vehicle is a net downgrade. That is exactly why I called it unacceptable to add it without ensuring those the weight equate to something tangible.

I’d rather additonal armor for the additonal weight REGARDLESS if it makes a difference or not.
The weight is already added as a given.

1 Like
25

The best vehicles in the game are currently the leopards, followed by the strv’s after that its debatable, but none of the leopards or strv’s are top of the list because of excellent mobility they are top of the list due to Armor and survivability. Notable the fastest vehicles at top tier are all arguably in the lower half of meta vehicles at top tier.

26

The Strvs/2A7 do not sacrifice a ton of good attributes for their armor, unlike RU tanks. They retain solid mobility.
And i’d argue that Abrams is better than them in my recent experience.

1 Like
27

I agree, abrams is very mobile and it is one of it’s greater strengths. However, only to be mobile. Moving and shooting and expecting armor to work with a huge gaping hole in its hull makes it harder to compete like that of Leopard type vehicles

28

all of these tanks will be added at some point T-90M / T-14 / T-15 / leopard 2a8 / M1a2 sep v3 / M1a2 sep v4
maybe this year or next 2 year

29

The thing is, even on Strv and 2A7, armor is not reliable. The simple answer is to just not get hit.

30

Hard to do when you’re on the move and not in cover

31

Try to minimize this. Do not cross open fields where you can be shot from multiple angles, as in literally any tank, you are a sitting duck.

32

Do you mean an upgraded varient of the T-90M?

T-15 would go crazy.

Leopard 2A8 would be a nice addition, specially with the STRV 123A

Abrams as well. Whatever that brings

1 Like
33

The abrams is not anywhere near better than the leopards. and unless you have extremely bad mobility it isnt going to define you as a good or bad tank as once again all of the fastest tanks in the game suck because they lack typically in armor and survivability.

1 Like
34

yes all of these tanks will be added at one point and Strv 123A would be cool tank added for Sweden

1 Like
35

Abrams has better mobility, reload, shell selection, ammo stowage, has a snappier chassis, etc. There is a lot of things it does better.

36

You bringing this up multiple times doesn’t mean I have to automatically agree with it.

The added armour won’t take away the fact that the composites near the gun shield are lessened due to the various mechanisms mounted there.
That weakspot will remain, and even if I didn’t, it’s such an incredibly minor area that it still doesn’t change the overall picture of the SEP v3 being a M1A2 SEP sidegrade.

I’ve got 3400+ kills in various M1’s combined, the number of times I’ve been killed through that area can be counted on one hand.

[Citation Needed]

Improved FLIR was planned for the SEP v4, the SEP v4 ended up being cancelled and portions of it’s planned upgrades were moved to the M1E3 program.

The SEP v3 was retroactively to receive parts of the SEP v4 planned improvements, but I’ve not seen mention of this including the FLIR upgrade.
The Meteorological Sensors were definitely moved to SEP v3, but that component plays no role in War Thunder.

image

Sorry to be blunt, but those that disagree with me on this topic and those that don’t make use of mobility are consistently players with significantly worse stats.

You achieve around 1.3 kills average per match in your M1’s, that’s pretty awful and I would not be surprised if that’s the result of a player sitting back and cautiously camping from stationary positions for the majority of the match. This highlights exactly why it’s not a meta playstyle, as do your poor winrates in these M1’s.

There’s a reason why every. single. one. of the most skilled players say that mobility is amongst the most important aspects in War Thunder.

Nonsense.

Here’s the Army’s description of the role and tactics which the M1 shall fulfill on the battlefield:

‘‘As the Army’s primary assault weapon system the M1 will satisfy the Main Battle Tank requirements during the 1980s and beyond. Capable of sustained offensive and defensive combat, the tank is designed to close with and destroy the enemy using shock action, firepower, and mobility in coordination with supporting ground and air systems under all battlefield conditions and levels of combat.’’

  • LESSONS LEARNED
    M1 ABRAMS TANK SYSTEM

That argument doesn’t hold water because they already have good all-around mobility, the literal best gun handling characteristics in the game, and still have solid firepower.

If your argument were true and that their armour and survivability is what allows them to be the #1 best MBT’s, then the same would be true for the T-90M. Clearly that isn’t the case because the T-90M is among the worst 12.7’s in the entire game.

The T-90M is just a Strv 122 if you took away the Strv 122’s reverse speed, neutral steering, reload rate and gun depression, that illustrates how much of a difference those factors make.

The HSTV-L is the fastest vehicle at top-tier, and despite it’s MASSIVE drawback in post-penetration damage, it still manages to be excellent due to that ludicrously mobile chassis.

37

Ad Hominem much? attack on my stats is a textbook deflection. My personal K/D doesn’t change the fact that the SEP v3 is significantly heavier than its predecessors. try addressing the actual argument. Stop trying to satisfy yourself and expecting one stat defines my performance. But if it makes you feel better, so bet it

You like to think of my arguments as rejecting other possibilites don’t you?
Does one statement reject another? No. I’ve said its designed for hull down, which its very effective in.

1 Like
38

It would be if I didn’t address any of your arguments, but I did.

Regardless, you claimed that it was just ‘‘my opinion’’, to which I replied and explained that it’s an opinion shared by all of the most skilled players across the game.
It’s also reflected by the vehicles chosen in competitive tournaments. Meanwhile, all of those whom have disagreed with me on this topic, have consistently held significant worse stats.

I believe that’s indicative of them having a worse understanding of the game’s meta. This isn’t meant as a personal attack, I’m simply stating consistent patterns.

I literally said that already.
I even provided exact weight figures for all of the relevant variants.

I can claim it was designed as an SPAA, that doesn’t magically make it true just like you claiming it was designed primarily for hull-down engaments also not magically making it true.

I provided a primary source document which supports my position, you provided… Nothing.

39

Words on text book are such effective sources. Really are. Not. Especially without additional context provided

40

I provided you with the title of the source. The source is readily available online.

I can’t give you any more context than that.