Yeah, M1A2T just needs a 1.0 BR increase as they dont play with the US handicap much :D
yep i agree with this look at the F-4E no look down or all aspect missiles but it faces the mig-23 which has both? please explain the logic
The Mig-23 has fewer missiles, a worse RWR, and it’s a higher BR because it is better.
2 Likes
lmao, also no.
An effectively chemical-protected tank on more than a 140° radius (even without its improved armor package) does NOT require a decrease in BR.
3 Likes
Nah, I would rather drop Usa MBT’s by 1, and also CAS planes by 1.
Then we could get back to time when USA dominated CAS games
1 Like
LOL COPE
The Abrams should have a much LESS reload time, 4 - 3 seconds depending on crew level. There have been countless videos posted online and proof of loaders doing reloads in half of the time u want it to be. The 5 second reload rate is there only for balancing along with making sure that everyone who doesn’t play usa ends up crying because usa is just simiply better. You are just proof of what i said because you gave no reasonable or absolute explanation but "oh but it should have a 6 second reload guys!!! so unfair! "
1 Like
You fix the turret ring, gun shield, and bulkead values, which are already accepted, for the Abrams and you fix 75 percent of the problems with the top US mbts. They already have all the infor needed to make the changes
1 Like
Congratulations?
So do most manual loaders including the Leoaprd 2s, challenger 2s, etc
Ah, US main cope. Its just hilarious
Because weaker shells, such as L27A1, were balanced in-game by giving them a faster rate of fire. Higher pen shells, such as DM53 are balanced by giving them a slightly lower RoF.
Now you have Abrams, with the second best shell and 5 second reload, the balance no longer works. As it stands, the Challenger 2s should get a 4 second reload to compensate.
But of course, US mains suffer and must steam roll every match without effort
2 Likes
And so Leopard loaders on simulations.
The fact Gaijin has handed the US, Israel, Italy and GB (with the ready rack caveat) 5s reloads on aced crews its merely due to their inhability to properly model the armor of the mentioned nations vehicle series, not because their crews are better or worse than the Germans anyways.
2 Likes
Fantastic!
Too bad APFSDS makes up 95% of what’s fired at you, making your argument entirely void.
I was being generous by only suggesting 12.3, 12.0 would be fine as well given that it’s just a glorified T-72B3.
It’s got awful mobility, mediocre gun handling, atrocious firepower and armour that only situationally works when fighting premium andys in their Click-Baits or 2A4M CAN’s.
3 Likes
just thought i should let everyone know its not just top tier that suffers from poor balancing
there is though
there is an accepted bug report on it
and it should be 250-300mm volumetric armor, which would massively reduce spalling from hits there, and stop autocannons
1 Like
it does not
the in game “DU” armor is copied from swedish trials results of an export M1A2 without DU and with an armor package explicitly worse than the domestic DU armor
2 Likes
Sure, I am biased, but I’m not wrong.
I never said i opposed this, as long as the abrams will receive it’s shells, fix it’s armor, and reload time, then id be happy for you to have that addition aswell.
Because the u.s goes through proper training and goes through months and months of training + combat scenarios? The fact that even on an aced crew it gets 5 seconds of a reload rate is enough of a nerf itself
Too bad Relict has decent kinetic protection + the T-90M has a generous spall liner layout, making your point a flagrant downplay to its protection.
3 Likes
no it doesnt at all
its highest BR IFV is the M3A3 bradly which is already bad at its 10.0 BR
1 Like
Then autocanon tank.
HSTVL?
that is very much not an IFV and doesnt really play as an autocannon due to the low ammo load
2 Likes
Well then that would sound like a good addition
What IFV does the US have that could be higher?