US ground vehicle tree on top of the tree, needs a buff

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
813

on what basis?

3 Likes
814

I agree that the firepower is one of the best at top tier. Mobility wise is average its in line with a lot of MBTs that have similar mobility. Survivability is definitely not good, it’s one of the easiest top-tier MBTs to knock out/ disable, like seriously, this ain’t 2017 anymore, but you would know that right, you’re very experienced in playing the Abrams. Also, implementing bug reports that Gaijin modeled wrong should not happen because it would buff it?

2 Likes
815

Such as, the average is around 60 kph. Abrams is closer to 70

It has a notably higher forward and reverse speed than a lot of MBTs at top tier and better PTW as well. Which usually means better acceleration.

Compared to what though?

Ariete or Challenger or Type 10?

Or the Leopard 2A7 and T-80s?

By my account, its perfect acceptable for top tier, best no? Worst? not even close, its like the 3rd or 4th best survivability at top tier at the moment.

But thats not what is being asked for.

A3 or A4 shells? so a significant increase to firepower that you yourself agree with is already one of the best at top tier.

BR Drops? Like I said, I already think half of them are under BRed and those that maybe arent, are walking a very very fine line.

and i’ve yet to actually see an accepted report regarding the Abrams armour being wrong. At least no more significantly than any other MBT at the moment. And if that was fixed, would it actually make a difference?

Turret basket? Is it actually an issue? or are US mains just mad they were one of the first?

So what is there to actually fix? to buff? Why is the Abrams so urgent?

Also the idea that the US needs the Sep V3 (I assume with notable upgrades over the V2 with some of the aforementioned unreasoanble additions like better shells) being added in a vacuum to and I quote:

Is just insane. Quite frankly, the US needs new 12.7/13.0 MBTs less urgently than more than a few other nations at the moment.

816

US, German and British winrates are pretty similar at 12.7, the difference is insignificant.

I thought I had seen the limit of your copious statements earlier, but I guess I can still be suprised.

Coming from someone who has actually played most of these MBTs, unlike a certain british main that likes to make questionably and overconfident statements, the Chally spall liners give it a slight edge in survivability over the Abrams.

However that is also where the advantages of the Chally 2 end.

maybe if you play this game with your monitor turned off, which tbf is something a lot of players seem to do.

7 Likes
817

Compared to the 2a7/stv122 and T80, which are the tanks it fights most of the time.

Survivability is definitely some of the lowest on the abrams because of the turret basket and no armor aside from the turret cheeks which most maps in this game don’t allow you to take advantage of . legit anything that pens is an insta mobilty kill.

What do you mean that’s not what is being asked for, it’s legit being ask for the last two years.
M1 Abrams (all subvariants) incorrect turret ring // Gaijin.net // Issues
Abrams (All) incorrect fuel cell bulkhead thickness and model // Gaijin.net // Issues
Hydraulic Pump of all models of M1 Abrams is incorrect. // Gaijin.net // Issues

And the turret basket cmon It was proved that it had nothing to with the turret drive and they implemented it anyway that’s why people were mad and that includes the Leo too.

You’re asking for nerfs it’s obvious you’re ill-informed but I don’t even know why I’m arguing with you when you don’t own any top tier mbts outside of UK. You don’t have any merit.

4 Likes
818

So?

You agree, its around the 3rd or 4th most survivable MBT at the moment?

What about every other top tier MBT at the moment?

Okay, a few reports. How does this significantly differ from other MBTs?

Spoiler

Bug List

Challenger 2 Bugs:

Mobility related

Armour/survivability

Base Armour

External Armour

Internal Armour

Other components

APS

Weapon Systems

Optics/Thermals

Main gun

Other armament

Miscellaneous

Challenger 2 Suggestions;

Right? But that also affects the Leopard equally, a tank you quoted as having better survivability?

So why is the Abrams special? Why is it suffering so much?

And OP is asking for notable and significant buffs for an MBT that is by all accounts fine. Just US mains are bad

Why do the US need A4 shells to “compete”?

819

So you consider the M1A1 at 11.7 reasonable?

Right? and? A2 rounds quite happily one shot everyhting in return? Whats the issue?

Why should the Abrams get special treatment and require multiple rounds? Though I have seen more than a fair share take 2 rounds to kill.

820

Not any more than L27/DM53/3BM60/M322 etc do as well, but again you are just another overconfident nation main talking about things they have very little knowledge about (seeing as you can barely handle the high tier MBTs of your own nation).

1 Like
821

So L27A1, the actually weakest shell at top tier, on a tank with one of the worst sustained fire rates at top tier, is fine?

But the A2 rounds (second highest pen) with the fastest reload and best sustained rate of fire at top tier isnt?

and why is the Abrams suffering so much, no one has actually given me a reason for why its apparently DOA, when by all accounts, its one of the best top tier MBTs in the game?

Look I get it, you dont actually have a good answer and so you swap to attacking me.

822

You keep moving the goalpost lol, maybe that has something to do with it as well.

You said M829A2 one shots everything. Guess what, so do most top tier darts including L27A1.

Also L27A1 isn’t the weakest top tier dart anymore depending on what we count as top tier, given that BTA4 exists at 12.3.

1 Like
823

Except it doesnt.

due to the low pen, it has terrible spall. Its not uncommon for it to not one shot.

Who’s moving the goalpost now? thats 12.3 not 12.7.

but if you want to include 11.7 to 12.7, then fine, L27A1 is the second weakest shell at top tier.

But even then, M1A2 is a LOWER BR than the Oplot. Why?

824

I have used both and the L27A1 spalls just fine, not the best but more than enough to one shot most of the time.

Again you just aren’t very good at high tier ground, maybe it’s time to accept that.

1 Like
825

and maybe US mains should accept that they dont need massive buffs? That they are just bad at the game

I dont admit Im good at ground, its my least enjoyable gamemode, but we can all agree that the US maisn are being stupid and unreasonable.

Ive been asking for reasonable fixes. Like CR2 ready rack fixes

US mains ahve not

Or do you think that M1A2 should be 12.0 with A4 rounds?

826

Gaijin bothched the model of the Abrams and the bug fix should be implemented and that goes for any MBT that they screwed up Idk why you keep bringing up special treatment, you’re the one arguing against it because it would buff it.
Saying US mains are just bad when (no offense), but you don’t really have the greatest stats yourself, plus you don’t own anything really outside of UK so like I said you don’t have any credible merit.

1 Like
827

Then tell that to OP who is asking for the Sep V3 or V4 with A4 rounds being added before anyone else even gets an equal to the M1A2. Probably also wants it to be a lower BR

828

I still wonder why Click Bait is at 12.0.

2 Likes
829

Sepv3 should have been added with the 2a7s plain and simple, but yes, v4 with a4 is not needed.

830

Honestly all the 12.0 Abrams are weird since most of their counterparts are 12.3.

I would have somewhat understood it if they kept the M1A1 HCs at 12.0 if they still had M829A1 instead of M829A2 to create a sense of progression, but as it currently is it’s just weird.

1 Like
831

Right and what about other nations still waiting for Sep V2 or 2A7 equivalents?

832

Right now things like HC or CB basically are SEP equivalents with worse thermals but sit 0.7 BR lower.
If 2A5 can be at 12.3, those two can as well.

I wonder why this isn’t talked about more to be honest.

2 Likes