US Top Tier - Abrams, Hellfires, Anti Air and what needs to change

The turret ring should be highlighted more, but I get your point.
You are excluding the BVM (or T-80UK), T-90M, and the Leopards / Strv 122s here.
You also do not take into account other munitions, like 120/125mm HE, in which case the UFP and roof would be green.
It would probably be best if you do 125mm HE for all MBTs, and compare them.


BVM is significantly weaker than T-80U in armor. T-90M is the only Soviet tank as armored as 2A7V.
However, T-90M is also the slowest of them, with the slowest reload and “one of the worst APFSDS rounds”. So while T-90M is rather superior to T-80BVM, it still has flaws compared to the competition and IMO the Abrams and ZTZ-99A are superior to the T-90M which itself is superior to the T-80UK which itself I find superior to T-80BVM.

1 Like

T-90M is abysmal other than the armour, survivability, and turret rotation speed.

1 Like

There’s areas on the other vehicles which should be highlighted more too, so it balances out in the end.

There’s also not much I can do about this until Gaijin refines the tool.

Those vehicles have plenty of downsides to off-set their armour advantage.

The point is that people act as though these M1’s have the armour profile of the Ariete, which is absurd.

These two are the flavour of the month vehicles, you can take any other MBT and compare it to these two Leopards and they’ll come off worse.
But that doesn’t mean that any other MBT is a poor vehicle just because they don’t stack up with these Leo’s.

1 Like

US CAS is very good, no questions about that. For me, russian MBTs are better than the abrams because of their better protection, even though their mobility is worse in reverse. Refering to the HSTVL as the best light tank is very controversial to say the least, as most lights can do the things it can do but better… but all of that misses the original points of this thread, so I think we should agree to disagree and go back to the topic :)

Yeah absolutely, I didnt want to say that its difficult to implement hardkills for these tanks. Just wanted to say that these more advanced vehicles should come with it and thats far in the future for me, because of a lack of proper lineups with other vehicles at the top ground BRs.

Yes reload rate is great, and as I said, could be nerfed when implementing the A3 ammo. But for me it would be better to be able to kill vehicles more efficient with your first shot instead of disabling sth important and then kill it. And it would give the tanks a more distinct feature than a kind of super loader with robot arms.

Good comparison, but as it was said, some very important vehicles are missing. And I agree with the fact that tanks like the challenger, merkava or ariete need to be adressed as well, I just havent played them yet. To say they are good in the offensive is a bit over the top, considering how slow the challengers are or how squishy the ariete.

I havent said once Im struggling with the abrams, Im getting some good games with it. I just want to try to objectively compare it to other tanks. Since War Thunder is highly dependend on skill, a good player can always get great games with bad tanks. But to balance the game, equally skilled players should get equal results with their vehicles, and atm, some vehicles are just clearly worse than others.

You’re essentially asking for the M1’s to receive the ability to roflpen it’s opposition.
That’s asking for major trouble because other nations will want the same treatment and you’re back to square one.

Firepower is just fine as it is.

You said that the firepower isn’t sufficient because you have to aim for weakspots.

Aiming for specific parts of an opposing vehicle is a core gameplay design of the game, there are very few vehicles with the ability to lolpen anything they meet, and they have significant drawbacks in other categories that compensate for this.

The M1’s are easily strong enough in other categories where the ability to lolpen opposing tanks simply wouldn’t be fair.

Stuff like the T-90A, Challenger 2 TES, Ariete PSO, Challenger OES, T-72B3, etc. are vehicles which don’t stack up well to their competition or don’t suit the META. I can understand complaints about them, but not the M1’s.

That being said, I’m all for the remaining nations to receive vehicles on-par with the Leopard 2A7V and Strv 122, that includes the M1A2 SEP v3, but that doesn’t mean I believe the current M1’s in particular need more buffs or are unique in their suffering when matched against the aforementioned Leos.

Its not fair to summarize the points Ive made like that, its a straw man argument. Ive already told twice that its not about oneshotting every opposition, its about defeating Kontakt 5 in the hull. Not even the turret, just the hull. That means the T80BVM or T90 would still be immune to it, since they have relic, but tanks at 11.3 or below would be easier to kill. Dont know if it would affect the Leo or 122s, but I doubt it, since the ammunition isnt designed to defeat these tanks.
Other nations have other things going for them like better armor at the leos or higher T Series, the Challenger should be included here too but isnt well protected in its current state, so having worse armor but better killing power against certain vehicles shouldnt be a big deal.

Understandable. I still think better ammunition would help the US to get more on par with the current top nations, and the A3 needs to come anyway, maybe with the SEPv3, which would then lead to more seperation to the lower ranks, where that kind of ammunition would be too OP.

‘’[…] your ammo isnt strong enough to kill besides enemy weakspots’’

‘‘Whats more concerning for me is the lack of the proper ammunition […]’’

So the Russian vehicles which are already having problems competing will become even worse?

I fail to see how this benefits the M1’s which struggle to deal with the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A7V, and not the T-72B3, T-90A and T-80U.

The M1 already has better killing power than any T-90, T-80, Leopard 2 or Strv 122.

Delusional Alvis as always, Pantsir can reach upto 20km last time i tested it, so i don’t know what u smoking but 12 km is BS.

Light tank u mean HSTV-L with the worst top tier round?

M829A3 gotta be added to the game, with the same pen but can defeat kontakt.

False it can kill upto 20 km and lock on targerts above clouds and fog. Pantsir simply is a BIG mistake there’s no SPAA equivalent to it.

1 Like

But not better armor, it got better mobility but less survivability, the M1 has better technologie but more stuff on the Turret for HE shells to easily penetrate the Turret, Pantsir able to penetrate the SEP2 Turret is insane, and let’s not mention that the SEPV2 can easily get penetrated and one shot none other than the 3BM42 in the hull, the shells literally goes into kill the crew set u on fire damage your engine and goes out, it’s literally a M1 Abrams nothing changed from the 80’s.

1 Like

Mobility helps.

The more I play the more I start to think armour is nearly irrevelant, with good armour people will just spam through your turret neck more.
And it’s not an excuse to say you cant play it aggressively. You have quite more than top tier ranks, yknow.
At pretty much a lot of them there’s examples and examples of vehicles that perform well effectively with just it’s speed.
Both armour and survivability is your pool to take punishment for your mistakes. Or at least that’s how it should be seen, as even with most protected tanks of any times there’s lots of way of knocking it out in WT.
Or a tool to use effectively in scenarios like shooting behind the hills, but mobility covers that.

Like everyone.

Being able to use mobility and map knowledge, considering and performing your reload rate, as well as considering positions of your enemies are a skill.

Plus given “solutions” regarding Abrams wouldnt solve much.

These lines are a bit out of context, but to clarify: Im aware of shooting enemy weakspots is the name of the game. As russian vehicles tend to have consistent, small weakspots, it would increase the area where you can kill them with a new top tier round.

And I fail to see russian vehicles having problems. But to be fair, their Winrates might be influenced largely by their insane CAS / AA combination. Yes, the new round wouldnt be beneficial against the best tanks, neither the russians or the Leos. The point is american teams are falling apart for years now and action needs to be taken against it, as we can see in the last patch, when other nations were getting very good additions to their tanks, the SEPv2 war cleary not even a sidegrade.

Most of the tanks, besides the slow ones like Challenger or Merkava, are relatively equal going forward, so thats not a big advantage for the abrams, which is getting slower with the SEP1 and 2 without getting much for it besides better thermals.

I think it depends on the situation. If your facing an equally skilled player on equal terms, your armor would make the difference. Since in your Abrams, you need to aim carefully at the drivers hatch, the gun mantlet or the lower frontal plate, while on a T Series, you can aim at the very large LFP or the big turret ring/gun mantlet of the abrams. Yes, most of the times there are way more things to consider. In the game, positioning becomes very important. But when comparing tanks, you need to think of equal terms imho, to clearly see whats the better vehicle.

If thats the case, it shouldnt be a thing to give the tank its ammo thats been in use since like 20 years, right?

1 Like

Punishment which comes from spall liners, aka survivability. Armour being an effect is more of your opponent’s mistake and not something your armour decides for you. In other words it’s something that actually helps in small amounts of times, considering your 90% isnt premiums.

Do you see Israel, France, Italy, Japan players sitting ducks on spawn or always behind a rock waiting to be CASed or pushed?

In other words you want something as a crutch for the lack of skill in your team.

So in other words your way is going right into center and getting pushed all way back?

All targets wont be a T-80U and armour wont do shit while the turret neck is existent.

Nowhere close, especially the Challengers.
And even then both Merkava and Challengers outperform Abrams, both having literally worse everything.

I literally mentioned the Challenger in the subordinate clause you have taken away in that quote… Leos, T-Series, Chinese, Japanese and american tanks are pretty close in forward mobility, only the reverse rates are very different, with american tanks getting worse with every more modern variant, without the addition of better armor.

You’re dodging my points here.

You yourself said that this would only affect Kontakt-5 -equipped Russian tanks, those are the T-90A, T-72B3 and T-80U. Those three vehicles are already struggling to compete.

Meanwhile, it wouldn’t change anything for the T-90M and T-80BVM, once again, you yourself said it wouldn’t do much against Relikt -equipped tanks.

Why do you want to nerf the vehicles which the M1 didn’t have a problem dealing with anyways?

If you believe the T-72B3, T-90A or T-80U (to a lesser extend) don’t have problems competing at 11.7 matchmaking, you haven’t played them.

‘‘For years now’’

Hyperbole isn’t going to convince me of your arguments I’m afraid.

Just over a year ago, the M1A2 SEP was sitting on a 70% winrate and the IPM1/M1A1 well above 70% for months.

Yes, that means premium/squadron vehicles for other nations at 11.3 as well.
The problem with US high tier is squarely with it’s horrendously poor playerbase, not the MBT’s they have at their disposal.

T-90M was also a sidegrade to the T-80BVM, as were the Leclerc AZUR, Challenger 3TD and plenty of other vehicles. Even the Strv 122B+ is still a sidegrade.

You would be ignoring mobility as a whole which isnt as lacking as you try to portrait.
Theres more than forward speed and reverse speed like how fast your tank rotates, get to their respective speeds and how much they lose while adjusting their movement.

Abrams got spall liners but it’s considered a real one because it’s not like the Russian one.

You don’t even play with US teams so your point doesn’t make sense at all.

It helps 99% of the time if someone shot at me and it didn’t do anything to me it would be a great benefit won’t it?

US play 90% of the time against Russia, it can’t spawn CAS its gonna get sandwiched, it cannot spawn an SPAA since it cannot do absolutely nothing against the SU-25SM3 so i don’t know why u compare them nations with US since most of them are small nations compared with the US.

I won’t say that the US teams doesn’t lack skill, they do but most of the players do have skills but infortunately they get crushed while most of the time they play against the Copium BVM, and leos.

What you gonna do about it? pop smoke every 2 sec to not get killed by a Vikhr? or hide between buildings to not get stomped on by SU-25SM3?? or kill tanks that got spall liners and let’s not mention the Stalin BVM side armor thats made from copîum.

You do realize that the Army won’t let a weak spot like that stay for long to be in one of the latest tanks such as the SEPV2???

UK and Israel play with the winning team most of the time, you’re onto nothing buddy.

You mean the COPY and PASTE abrams??
Ctrl C Ctrl V

Unpenetrable Hull and turret, poor mobility (not my fault the Russians are too stupid to add good mobility to their tanks)

Nah they’re not, the players that play with them are struggling, Russia gets the best of the best, and still they struggle??? How? u gonna mention mobility, turret rotation, that’s how it is in real life,???

T90M is equipped with such thing? it dies easily, i guess i would do better if we had the same armor, put Relikt on Abrams and let’s see how we gonna do and winrates gonna stay the same.

The good ol’ days, when Russia used to get stomped on like they do in real life. But BOOM let’s nerf the ADATS copy and paste the whole abrams, nerf anything that’s american, not model correctly anything that’s western, and let’s give Sweden better armor than leopards because yeah WE devs love Sweden hehehehe.

1 Like

Correct, I havent played them. The T90a is a vehicle with a way lower BR, so it shouldnt be a concern that it struggles to compete at 11.7. Dont have a clear opinion on the other two.

Do you have a source for that? I can only remember US hardly going to 50 percent, most of the times way lower than that. Concerning winrates, youre saying that russia struggles, while their winrates are constantly very high.

Thats an argument I wanted to avoid. Its just a claim that you are making and doesnt bring anything worth talking about. In my opinion, the playerbase of the most popular nations is equally skilled since many new player want to play them. Minor nations often have more experienced players.

And as I said, SEPv2 wasnt even a sidegrade. T90M offered better survivability due to spall liners and a better protected caracell, the Chally 3 better Ammo, the 122B+ better survivability. The SEPv2 was just heavier, more easy to spot. Nothing more.

Even when taking these things into account, they are still pretty close, and the M1 gets to the worst end. So theres no point in going further into specific turn rates etc, its the same result.


Well, what does that make any other MBTs… other than being inferior?

1 Like