Guys I like remind everyone to debate the topic in good faith and if you can’t do that leave each other alone!
2 Likes
I still think the same. With the current state of damage models, maps, and the lack of teamwork among players, it’s impossible to make a realistic matchmaking game. This is why we see the M1 with the M744 (which would be the correct choice given the time period) facing the T-90 and other tanks with bullets powerful enough to make the M1 feel like a light tank. The basis of this imbalance is that the game’s terrible maps reward reaching a point on the map before the enemy. It would be interesting if the developers made better, larger, and more dynamic maps, changing the bases from north to south, or east to west. It would also be interesting to encourage teamwork and covering areas, so we don’t see the “fast tank” that falters and kills eight enemies in a minute simply because no one was watching.
What is certain is that the T-72A from 1982 could have been added for the Soviets, or at least an initial model of the T-72B to fill those gaps.
Yet another classic (US main) take from Tripod2008.
Ah yes, let’s give the M1 Abrams M900 to equalize it with other vehicles which have M900 or similar firepower.
What’s that? Those other vehicles have significant drawbacks that balance out their firepower advantage? Oh just ignore that, buff the M1 Abrams anyways and make it blatantly superior to any of it’s rivals!
Lol.
As if inexperienced US players haven’t been complaining about the M1 Abrams for years and years now.
This video has been relevant for years and it will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.
Yes, let’s ignore Jon farming nukes and dominating entire lobbies due to the M1 being so powerful and it having absolutely amazing attributes all around (HE EVEN EXPLAINS THIS AT THAT VERY TIME STAMP!), and instead cherry-pick literally a single engagement from this entire video, and then pretend that singular engagement is representative for the entire gameplay experience of the vehicle, when it very clearly isn’t.
Then you unironically ask me if I’ve even watched the video?
This level of ignorance regarding game balance and the experience of other nations/vehicles is exactly why I generally just ignore your replies.
If you think the BMPT is suddenly no longer a problem to deal with if you’re using DM23, L26, 3BM-42, etc. etc. then I’ve got news for you.
Maybe for you it is.
You also don’t seem to grasp the fact that this is a BMPT problem and not a M1 Abrams problem.
Every single 10.7 struggles with a BMPT, implying this is uniquely a M1 problem is simply delusional.
I welcome you to play a Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4 or Ariete (p) and then tell me how it goes fighting those BMPT’s.
Even L/55 DM53 can fail to reliably kill a BMPT, so what? Is your solution to give the M1 Abrams a 140mm gun just so that it can more reliably deal with the BMPT? And balance relative to other 10.7’s be damned?
Or should they perhaps address the artificially high survivability of the BMPT instead of buffing vehicles that face it?
2 Likes
depends, according to Lessons Learned: M1 Abrams Tank System there is just over two year gap between M774 and M833 being type classified and reaching initial operating condition.
Such as? and can you quantify them instead of just provide heuristics this time. I’d like to know empirically how much It’s missing out on.
So the BMP-T and assorted other additions others haven’t made any sort of noticeable impact on the 10.7 Bracket? More autocannons really doesn’t help reduce the occurrence of issues with the M1’s modeling of the turret ring and skirts.
Way to misread the point entirely; let me fix that for you since apparently you’ve some issues.
A person of his clearly “unmatched” skill can still get let down by the poor performance of M774, while doing everything else correctly. Do you not think that mere peons that have a fraction of that self-evidential raw authority to speak on such an issue might in fact encounter this issue more, or less frequently since the meta on the lower skill side might in fact skew things differently.
And that access to M833 or M900 would go some way to reducing it’s occurrence.
Is it not a greater pity on your end that you willfully extend such ignorance to other players, especially those endowed with lesser skill then yourself?
You sure it’s not because you just can’t come up with workable arguments that would rebut said positions?
1 Like
10.7 bracket is the important bit here.
It affected ENTIRE bracket. Not just M1.
Yes, that’s not exactly at issue here.
Though an argument could be made that due to various modeling issues the M1 is somewhat more sensitive than many of its contemporaries to the implementation of additional members of the Heavy IFV archetype to the game.
Yet you can make similiar arguments to Abrams contemporaries.
Challengers being slower than Abrams get caught more often in the open than Abrams.
2A4 having reload slower by 1 entire sec than Abrams has smaller chance to make follow up shot if 1st one doesnt F-kill or outright disable BMPT.
Bhisma having less gun depression than Abrams has to expose more of its tank to engage BMPT on uneven terrain.
Vickers having relatively worse turret armor than Abrams is more easier to disable by BMPT even in hulldown situation, ie. At its strongest.
So on so forth.
If Abrams is deserving buff due to BMPT existing, so do other 10.7.
So this isnt Abrams or 2A4 issue, its the BMPT issue.
1 Like
You would not have to ask if you actually bothered to play other nations. People also wouldn’t have to explain it to you so frequently.
Every single time I engage in a discussion with you, it quickly becomes pointless because your arguments stem from a point of ignorance.
You refuse to play other nations/vehicles which would actually make your arguments better informed, and give you a less biased view on how the American MBT’s perform in relation to their peers.
Given that I don’t have time to in-depth test every single TD/Light tank at around these BR’s and that you haven’t specified which exact vehicle(s) you deem superior, I’ll just use the M10 Booker which is frequently quoted in similar discussions.
Armour profiles against 120mm DM23:
That being the most common type of shell you’ll face around these Battle Ratings.
Acceleration data for both vehicles:
The M1 Abrams has significantly superior mobility and better all around armour protection against the vast majority of projectiles seen at these BR’s.
Claiming the M1 requires M900 (because other vehicles have access to it) is sheer ignorance regarding the performance of equal BR’d vehicles.
This is very typical of US main argumentation.
They’ll pick a specific vehicle that is overperforming and then use that as the measuring stick to justify US vehicles being given unfair advantages.
This is an issue of the BMPT requiring a BR increase and a nerf, not the M1 Abrams requiring a buff.
Cherry-picking at it’s finest.
Are you seriously implying that he can not also be let down by the disadvantages of the M1’s peers?
Do you seriously think that the T-80UD’s lack of gun handling hasn’t let him down? Or that the Challenger Mk3’s lack of mobility hasn’t let him down? Or that the Ariete (p)'s lack of any kind of armour hasn’t let him down?
And do you really believe that a low skill player won’t have problems with the disadvantages of the M1’s peers?
Oh wait, I forgot, it’s ‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’ with US mains and only the M1’s disadvantages are valid.
The fact that you’re a US main whilst I play 5 different nations is not helping this argument of yours.
No, it’s that I’ve had this discussion with you a hundred times before and you keep falling back to the same tired arguments that I’ve already debunked over, and over again.
It’s the exact same arguments that other users have now brought up as well. I’m clearly not unique in recognizing your ignorance regarding other nations given that it’s among the first thing people point out to you.
2 Likes
Except that there was no statistic attached to the original post and most of it was comparing the vehicle date of service and their top round issue year. The amount of double standard in favour of certain nations vehicles in the Forums, considering that the greater majority is english speaking this tell you a story. M1 Abrams is 2 km/h faster than T-80B (obviously this minor difference has no importance for the everyday player) on top of that has a higher power-to-weight ratio (from 25,6 HP/t in the T-80B to 27,3 HP/t in the M1 Abrams),
M1 Abrams has better armor values, better gun handling and angles, T-80B wins when people simply drive forward which is where the armor is. Saying Abrams can be lolpen by every vehicle is misleading, you need weakspots to make a fair game, because this same say (if we exclude the euphemism that you used to make this post), every vehicle can the pierced front-on by their respective counterparts in said battle rating, if that wasn’t the case either the Abrams would be at lower battle rating or at higher if there was no vulnerability, which is not the case in War Thunder, read;
Consider vehicles in War Thunder needing 2 out of 3 good characterist to be considered good in some way and justify their battle rating:
M1 Abrams has:
Good armor values and layout;
Good mobility and acceleration;
Mediocre firepower (consider for this aspect penetration values of the top ammo, post-penetration damage, reload time and fire response (or gun handling));
T-80B has:
Mediocre armor but good layout;
Good mobility but mediocre acceleration
Good firepower (considering the aspects above cited).
I see this way as I listed, if the vehicle has at least two positive points then a change is not really needed, at least not a radical change as people expect, if it isn’t the case at first glance ammo options should be considered, if appliable; armor values and then battle rating change outside of decompression, after this considerations you have to analyse the vehicle compared to other vehicles it may face, if you conclude that said vehicles outperform or underperform in comparison then consider a battle rating change as well, at least I think this is a more fair way to determine if a vehicle is good or not without considering average player performance because including that it’s way more complicated.
Welcome to the heat of talking about the M1 Abrams xD
The original M1 ran both M833 and M900 (M900 specifically after barrel serial number 6000 iirc)
You do realize most fights are decided by the first shot right? I hate this “BuT tHe 5 SeCoNd ReLoAd” when you die before you can reload because the subpar armor for what it fights.
data pulled from statshark for the last 7 months.
The armor is pretty poor for where it’s at. 30mms can penetrate the massive turret ring, that is not variable thickness like it should be, from extreme distances. It also fights tanks 0.3BR above it running 3BM60 (a literal top tier round) while fighting ammo at its own BR designed post initial production designed to counter better versions of the T-series, Leopard 2s and the M1 itself while being limited to a M735 and M774 (a pro production and the original production rounds. It doesn’t even get M833 that came out 2 years later and was designed as a stop gap against emerging threats specifically for the 105mm gun and was the actual combat round for the M1). It’s not even a glass cannon as it doesn’t get good ammo and the only rebuttal has been “but it’s faster and reloads faster”. Cool, so it’s a MBT forced to be a light tank with poor ammo and is going to die before the reload can get off because first shot is what matters. Reload rate means nada if the round isn’t worth anything. /s Does that mean the Bradley is OP because it reloads faster?
Finally, and to be quite frank, you haven’t run the M1 so what’s your experience or expertise for the discussion coming from outside from playing a lot of Russia? I’ve personally ran through the US tech tree within the last 6 months and currently acing the T-90A out. It’s night and day easier for Russian tankers.
1 Like
Heads up, that M1 highlight isn’t accurate. I was checking it against rounds last night and it was ignoring about half the tank on what can/cannot be penned. It’s better to hover around the tank.
Judging by the comparison of our performance I do seem to know how most fights play out. Do you?
More and more i have feeling you play Abrams in a way where you just roll to the cap like you own the place, fire and then just wait in the middle of the street waiting for absolution from god.
Which might work in T-80UD but wont work in Abrams.
That’s exactly what I told you a couple of days ago.
I said that the Armour Analysis tool was not working properly and that it showed DM23 could not penetrate the M1 Abrams.
You then replied to me saying: ‘‘That’s nonsense! Of course DM23 can penetrate the Abrams! Why would you claim otherwise??’’.
Fast forward to now, and here you are telling me that the Armour Analysis tool isn’t working properly…
Regardless, I use L26 to simulate the areas which DM23 could penetrate.
Idk, did you get downtiered or uptiered a lot? For me, I’m almost constantly getting max uptier matches no matter what BR or nation I play. Either way, does that negate the fact most fights are chosen by the first shot at that BR?
I actually try to flank a lot but that doesn’t help much when I’m getting things like “Advance to the Rhine” all the time while in it.
Yes, but the problem is the context in which this M1 Abrams is situated. When the M1 entered service, it most likely used M735 ammunition, which was soon replaced by the M744, and this in turn was later replaced by the M833 (we went through those three rounds in 5 years). The problem would arise with the M900, since although the M1 can fire that ammunition (apparently even the M60A1 and A3 could in the Gulf War), by the time the M900 was released, the M1 would have been replaced by the IPM1 and M1A1 in front-line units.
What I mean is that, for balance purposes, the developers need to place the tank model in a specific time period, and it seems the M1 in the game is set around 1981 or 1982. Therefore, in my opinion, the ammunition situation for the 105mm Abrams seems more or less correct. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that ammunition like the M833 (there are similar cases in other countries) ends up being just a stopgap round until a better one is released, since there are hardly any tanks that use it as their primary ammunition.
The change I would make is a complete overhaul of the Battlegrounds so that the M1 doesn’t encounter tanks like the T-90, but at the same time, the maps would need improvement, both in removing fixed firing points and in their size. Additionally, for example, I would give the Soviets an initial model of the T-72B (the one with five layers of metal and air spaces) to occupy the Battleground that the T-90A would vacate upon moving up.
Did you read what was said or just trying to argue? I said that it’s more accurate to hover over it as the highlight function isn’t accurate… It’s like how the bottom in the center getting hit can cause damage from spalling as it goes through the engine wall or hitting the sides of the bottom next to the tracks will throw spall across the entire tank. You’re using it discuss about “armor profile” when it’s missing a lot of spots where it can also punch through and gets used in matches and didn’t mention how the highlight is missing plenty of spots.
Why would you use L26 v DM23 when discussing DM23? They have different stats.
M774 was the new production round when it entered service. If we were to go with the “most likely used at introduction” round as the best it gets, we should see downgrades to every nation’s tanks for their best APFSDS. Idk if the M60 could fire it as it was specifically the M68A1 gun that could withstands the M900 pressure. There was the Super M60 prototype that got it but no production variants did.
And fair, we’ve been asking for larger maps/new game modes but the DEVs shot that down in a livestream a couple months back (they effectively said we’re too stupid to adapt to them). I’d love a more historical gamemode as that’s a lot easier to balance than just throwing things in places due to “player statistics” as Gaijin does now. Then again, players would have to learn a little on the doctrine of the tanks and that’s a whole other ballgame.
But, unfortunately, that still leaves the M1 fighting tanks running rounds to directly counter it still in game. That’s why I put this up because I know an actual fix won’t ever come XD