The new Abrams is too OP

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
471

fair point

472

No, you’re not

You can notch it just like any other Fox-3


Sloppy notches since this clip is like 1 1/2 years old but it proves my point
There is no radar missile in this game that can’t be notched unless you’re trying to chaffless notch a missile that’s coming from below you

Ok? You have the better missile kit and even radar
Make use of it

There is no ECM in this game
Also, AIM-120s share the exact same seeker properties as every other modern Fox-3 (besides MICA) which includes the R-77

2 Likes
473

Well let’s see how these new missile changes will affect current gameplay. From what I’ve see, it looks like it will be even harder to notch fox3s.

Also by ECM I mean chaff.

474

Tell me, what does E in ECM stand for?

2 Likes
475

That’s not ECM
Please use the correct terms

2 Likes
476

They just get better close range performance
Notching itself won’t be harder

1 Like
477

electronic

478

You might wanna double check AIs third point.

2 Likes
479

It’s not wrong, but I guess usually not what is meant with ECM (here at least, usually referring to active ECM instead).

Passage from Introduction to radar systems by Skolnik:

Spoiler

image
image1050×446 155 KB

3 Likes
480

Eurgh

Just say chaff instead of ECM
When people say ECM here, they mean jamming, towed decoys etc.
Not chaff or flares

It’s important to keep a distinction because it would just lead to confusion

2 Likes
481

oh my bad:D

482

Thanks for the input. It will be taken into consideration.

483

My god I started playing this game in arcade and specifically remember playing the crappy Waffenträger over and over just to be able to kill Jumbos haha

3 Likes
485

There was a time where someone brought this thing to 11.7, already mid game and he was sitting somewhere at A in Adrennes that time he already stealth killed two at this point, I was in a type 90 and got in there and couldn’t hear a thing at all and quickly drive out to avoid dealing with it because:

  1. I was afraid of it because high chance that he gonna one shot me aiming anywhere
  2. Saved the embarrasement of getting pop’d by a 8.0 vehicle while in my 11.7

486

I rather fight the m18 at 3.7 than the jumbo

The m18 can at lest be killed a hull down jumbo is an unkillable fortress(unless using the Archer maybe)

Add stab and that you more often than not have multiple of them and the chaos is perfect

1 Like
487

VT4 is much faster both in reverse and forwards, and it has a slightly faster reload. VT4A1 is arguably better, if not outright.

2 Likes
488

Aha. hahahaha well. found one of the unlucky souls that is pushing me with 2 teammates through a smokepop with overlayered ess while im retreating and moving shooting the first one coming out of the smoke into the ess not knowing where and when to use thermals and when not. Going in with such confidence that they manage to lose a 3 vs one combined push into a t90m. I’m not saying this is absolutely idiot-proof and works every time. But when youre completely cornered without allies to help and know theres multiple dudes pushing you, you might as well try…since without using it youre dead 100%

But you Keep going , pls keep going. My performance in wt benefits and relies heavily on people that are hellbent to ignore the tools given to them and refuse to improve. Unfortunately the chinese teams that are full of “esports ready” high performers that of course all have to be “cheating” that i have to fight at eu nighttime arent as ignorant. almost all of them are willing to utilize and understanding how to use their stuff unfortunately.

xD jep. ever used slaving the 50 cal to gunner sight to track enemy sitting behind cover or a hill that cant decide to push and then take him out from the corner nearby when he cant angle anymore? Dude…watch how some really good players play, see all the different stuff they use, try to replicate that and then come back and tell everyone again how useless ess is with a straight face.
Of course you don’t have to use all of those. They are optional. Modifications. But exactly those let you win in a situation that a tank that doesnt have it cant in the same way or can do nothing against. Being stuck behind tank down cover on a urban map, enemy leo on the other side, both know of each others presence and are mging the other to mark for allies. But one has a top mounted 50 cal. Slave seccondary weapon to gunner sight, shoot his track, hes just sitting there, maybe u can even go around to get underneath his nato hump or reverse sidescrape him when hes badly angled.
Yeet multi purpose heat (going at 1400 m/s!!! 150 m/s slower than the apfsds) at strafing planes.
Get out of sticky situations vs multiple ppl pushing you with smart usage of ess combined with smoke.
HE the roof of tank sitting tank-down.
Lots of tanks can’t do any of these. Some can use one. The abrams can utilize 4 of those 4 opportunities.

You are not forced to use that.
But i can tell you. The really good players do. Multiple times a match in a good match in basically any (admittedly showcase) video.

1 Like
489

should be F-15 Active and Abrams X bc both are prototypes and F-15EX with the M1E3.

1 Like
490
    • IPM1:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 47.8 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 129.4 → 109.7%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 50.5 → 40%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 137.5 → 100.1%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 50.5 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 137.5 → 92%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 63.2 → 110%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 188.1 → 230.5%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 75.2 → 116%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 10 → 11.7%
    • M1:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 40.8 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 110.4 → 110%
    • NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • 360 → 800 mm
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 50 → 34.43%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 136 → 93.05%
    • NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • 360 → 800 mm
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 50 → 31.72%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 136 → 85.79%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 72 → 140%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 199 → 250%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composites at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 72 → 131.81%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 199 → 244.7%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 78 → 116%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 7 → 11.7%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 78 → 115%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 7 → 11.7%
  • M1A1:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 38.7 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 113 → 109.88%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 39.5 → 40%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 99.5 → 100.1%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 37.5 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 92.5 → 92%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 110 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 220 → 243%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composites at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 110 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 220 → 240%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 74.5 → 72.8%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 8.5 → 6%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 74.5 → 72.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 8.5 → 5.7%
  • M1A1 AIM SA, M1A1 AIM SA [GBR]:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 48.4 → 37.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 130.1 → 109.88%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 88.5 → 67.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 160 → 116.89%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 88.5 → 62.18%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 160 → 108.4%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 73.1 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 201.8 → 243%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 73.1 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 201.8 → 240%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 77 → 75.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 77 → 74.9%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
    • M1A1 HC:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 38.7 → 37.75%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 113 → 109.88%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 69%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 114.2%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 63.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 105.5%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 110 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 220 → 245%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 74.5 → 74.7%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 8.5 → 8.3%
  • M1A1 HC (Kate’s), M1A1 HC «Click-Bait»:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 48.4 → 37.75%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 130.1 → 109.88%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 69%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 114.2%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 63.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 105.5%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 73.1 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 201.8 → 243%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 73.1 → 131%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 201.8 → 240%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 77 → 75.2%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 77 → 74.9%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
  • M1A2:
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 48.4 → 38.7%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 130.1 → 110%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 69.6%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 115%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 63.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 105.5%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 120%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 230%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 125%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 230%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 79.7 → 71.1%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 5.2%
    • M1A2 SEP (TUSK):
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 48.4 → 37.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 130.1 → 109.88%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 69.6%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 115%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 63.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 105.5%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 130%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 240%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 130%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 235%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 79.7 → 75.8%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
  • M1A2 SEPv2 (Trophy):
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite: modifier against chemical threats: 113 → 109.88%
  • M1A2 SEPv2 (TUSK 2):
    • 360 mm NERA layer of the hull front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 48.4 → 37.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 130.1 → 109.86%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret right front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 69.6%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 115%
    • 800 mm NERA layer of the turret left front composite:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 90.7 → 63.5%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 157.3 → 105.5%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret right side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 130%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 241.9%
    • 300 mm NERA layer of the turret left side composite at the crew:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 70.7 → 130%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 195.6 → 241.1%
    • 350 mm NERA layer of the turret side composites at the ammo:
      • modifier against kinetic threats: 79.7 → 75.8%
      • modifier against chemical threats: 9 → 8.3%
491

welp do with it as you wish