Wouldnt go that far but i agree Abrams isnt the worst, since things like Merkavas and Arietes exist.
Every tank has bugs, lotsa bugs(except T-xx duh) but Gaijin wont fix them
Chally suffer from poor modelling and UK tea tax
Leclerc can be penned by baguette(although Leclerc armor is quite decent sometimes)
Ariete armor is the equivalent of spaghetti
ZTZ/VT armor got butchered by Gaizyn
Leopard armor especially hull armor is still paper which it shouldnt be
And lastly Abrams armor are export model armor, and hull doesnt get generational upgrade
and thats just armor alone
3 Likes
With the exception of the Leopards and maybe the T-80BVM, what else isnt at the very least equal?
Maybe the Leclercs? Though they have a much weaker shell iirc.
Few have the mobility, firepower and protection of the Abrams. Most have 1 or 2, but I cant think of any others that have all 3 to the same degree.
1 Like
Even more, I don’t know how you guys even manage to kill them at all.
Its only this part id disagree with, but im not at home so cant really compare the armor packages right now.
I wouldnt rely on Abrams armor outside hulldown when i play KVT.
How is it “Massive”? it’s literally against Kontakt that’s it, also the addition of the SEPV2 was pretty useless without the dart.
and you shouldnt
1 Like
Then perhaps the better word is survivability.
At the very least, I average 2 shots per Abrams for a kill. Im a bad ground player, I dont play it often, but between blow out panels and in my experience, reasonably good armour, they usually can survive a hit.
If I see a Merkava or soemthing, it dies in one hit, every time.
This does not apply with Russian tanks.
I find the Merkava’s survivability better than the Abrams honestly especially it didn’t get the basket nerf, when i get shot its mostly takes two of my crew and i can shoot back after 2 seconds.
So? It’s not a “Massive” buff at all, since alot of the tanks after receiving these darts they would fight against tanks with Relikt not Kontakt, so calling it “Massive” is a “overstatement”
How? Putting ERA all over the tank but forget to actually use a better transmission?
I dont rely on armor in general, but it certainly is nice to be able to peek ridge without getting lolpenned in the cheek.
If you want ERA-Perforation added, then that also needs to be added to the L27A1 and DM53, etc. Its not just Abrams that has that. If you want a new shell with more pen, then that affects more than just soviet ERA
because they use a completly different doctrine in designing tanks
which fits alot more into the war thunder play style than hull down
Fix what you broke after this hotfix
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R6Ma1FrthT9i
Can’t contest this either. Bring every tank closer to its irl performance
ERA isnt the russian doctrine
it is to be constantly on the move instead of doing hull down
that is the reason why russian tanks dont have gun depression
Russian tank forces have revealed details of new tank tactics during a battalion tactical exercise held in Voronezh, state news agency RIA Novosti reported on 4 July…
… The drills focused on constant movement so that the tanks present a very brief window for return fire, too short for accurate missile fire, enabling the tanks to fire on enemy positions.
Describing the first tactic, “tank carousel”, tank company commander Captain Roman Schegolev said, “There can be three, six, nine or more vehicles. They continuously travel in a circle – one fires, the other moves to the rear and reloads, the third prepares to enter the position.”
Id say that highly depends on from which angle you shoot at it and if the turret is lined with the hull, centre mass in the turret ring when bot hull and turret face the shooter usually disables them in one shot in my experience both killing Abrams and getting killed in Abrams.
From my experience neither Leo2 nor UD nor TURMS suffer from this as much as Abrams.
Havent really noticed any difference with sideshots between Leo2 and Abrams.
Lucky you, if my gf swallowed the way merkava modules swallow my shrapnel id be a happy man
2 Likes
Yeah, its why the CQB maps kinda suck at times, Soviets tanks are well suited for it:
Found this breakdown before which is quite good
First is engagement rules: IRL, most tank fight at very long ranges (kilometres) with your tank retreating after every shot fired. In War Thunder, tanks are mostly forced in close quarters, meaning rushing the enemy is a good tactic as you won’t get sniped by someone you can’t even see (most of the time). Since War Thunder needs you to capture point, you are forced to push points (This helps Russia’s doctrine heavily).
Design: Russian tanks are made with the doctrine of pure assault in mind, and it shows. They’re smaller and have a better profile thanks to their autoloader and have great frontal armor. NATO MBTs were made to counter those tanks but were expected to be used in entrenched, hull down position. They’re larger and usually have weak hull armor compared to their godlike turrets. They’re still very much capable of attacking thanks to their great mobility, but their weaknesses are easily exploited at short ranges when attacking since the enemy just has to aim center mass most of the time while you are forced to aim at specific weakspots to kill Russian MBTs. - Reddit
That’s why its all over their tanks? It’s mainly their only source of protection, remove it then it would decrease the survivability and make it a light tank.
great that you ignored the explenation of their actual doctrine
