The Abrams is top three best tanks in the game. Want to know why so many think it is bad? Because they refuse to play it properly. The Abrams was not designed to be thrown into battle against 16 other tanks firing at it. It was designed for a support role.
There’s a reason why Leopards and Challengers sit in the back: they were designed to snipe.
There’s a reason why T-Series tanks are shorter and sloped: they were designed for flat terrain and CQC.
There’s a reason why Japanese and Chinese tanks are so fast: they were designed for flanks and ambushes.
Want proof of what the Abrams is? Take a look at the doctrine of the US forces. What did they do back in the 90s? That’s right, they let their air force swoop in and take care of the majority of the opposing ground forces. The Abrams only had to fight a few stragglers that were not carpet bombed.
What did the Abrams do in Afghanistan? They were rarely in any tank battles. Why? Because the US Air Force took care of the Afghan tanks, so the US tanks played a support role.
What did the Abrams do in Syria? Support role.
What did the Abrams do literally anywhere? They were used in a support role.
What do level 9 players that just bought the Click-Bait do? They rush into the battle, guns blazing, and then cry because everyone knows the weak spot of the most common 11.7 vehicle.
I’d say it’s more daft to assume that Japanese and Chinese tanks are particularly nimble compared to things like the Abrams and Leopard (they aren’t) or that Russian tanks are designed for CQC (Grozny says привет). Every tank is designed to be the best it can possibly be, in every possible way, while accounting for manufacturing costs and local engineering capabilities. Reducing this to obnoxious specializations is infantile.
If the Soviets were to have invaded the Fulda Gap, the Abrams stationed there were ordered to hold them off for as long as they could. Sounds like defense right? It had great mobility for repositioning and the turret armor was made to be resistant to projectiles fielded at the time. Sure in the long run they probably would have been offensive, but the tank does extremely well in a hull down position.
Except that’s what they are. Different doctrines require different strategies. Unless you really believe the Type 10 can brawl, especially with zero armour. Or that the T-90M can snipe with it’s no gun depression. Or he’ll, the Leopard can brawl, despite the massive disadvantage of a massive power pack.
There are completely on two different levels of effectiveness. To say that they are equally OP is being disengenous.
What makes thr F15 op is soley because of its gbu39 paired with the mavericks. Its what makes the mavericks barely usable at medium-long range instead of it being useless
The heck are you getting this from? The M1 series has, for a very long time, a middle of the road elevation and traverse speed, its always been worse than the high end T series tanks and the leopards.
EG all M1s spin at max 34 degrees per second and elevate at 19.2 degrees per second without crew mods.
Meanwhile every single leopard since the 2A4 spins at 34 degrees per second and elevates at 32 degrees per second.
The leclercs are at 34 and 32.
The BVM is 34 and 32.
The T-90M is 34 and 32.
Heck you have to go to 11.0 before any Russian tank gets bad gun handling.
The tank most equivalent to the M1 series gun handling is the Ariete at 34 and 16 respectively.
Ditto to everything above since thats gun handling.
Is literally equal bar having 1 degree more gun depression compared to the leopards and ariete, the Challanger has the same but I doubt anyone is saying that tank is fantastic.
Man you really have no idea what you are talking about, 4x to 12x is vastly superior in game, the Type 10s have the best optics at 4x to 13.3x.
I’m not even going to address the remaining drivel here since its just myths stacked on myths.
As a fighter. Nothing in the game still compares to the KH-38MT, its not even remotely a contest.
Both the Eurofighter and F-15E are not close to unkillable CAS currently, that crown goes to the SU-30SM and SU-34 and nothing will top them until air launched cruise missiles are added or the KH-38MT is removed from the game like it should be.
I’m sorry I have an aced crew in my M1A1? Also only the early variants have the 3-10x optics. The newer ones get the 3-13x optics. None of what I said was a myth it’s purely from my perspective as an opinion. There’s no need to be so hostile over someone’s opinion.
Yes I am aware, as already stated 4x to 12x or 4x to 13.3x is vastly superior to both, the early M1s suffer even more, thank you for furthering my point.
You repeated multiple myths which others have already countered and cited blatantly incorrect statements about present equipment. I have no interest in repeating what has already been said here.
The only truth you brought up was that the later M1s have acceptable ammunition and the armor sometimes works.
Everything I stated from my point os view is subjective to me aside from concrete stats. Again you do not need to be hostile. Sure, the Abrams are worse in some areas in others, but it doesn’t mean it’s the worst MBT in the game. The M829 series of ammunition is perfectly acceptable for top tier engagements. You don’t need a lolpenn round to do good. The armor in the turret is sufficient in the M1A1 and onwards for threats you can face. The hull armor has the same weakness as every other MBT, being the LFP. With an aced crew the Abrams excels, with a base crew it’s average, not the best or the worst. It all comes down to playstyle with the Abrams, and that’s where a lot of people get it wrong. I think I’m qualified in my opinion to say it’s one of the best tanks if played correctly from my stats with it. You can disagree respectfully with that.
That is very much not the case as per what others have refuted you with.
Where have I claimed such?
I have not claimed otherwise.
I have not claimed otherwise. I agree with the statement that the armor on the M1 series “Sometimes works”.
That is very much not the case on multiple MBTs, especially after the turret basket nerf the M1 series received.
This same exact statement applies to every tank in game.
And once again, I can say the same about a myriad of vehicles.
I do not seek to refute your own success with the vehicle. I do however find your personal success irrelevant if you go around reciting myths and false data which I chose to refute.
I am seeking to stifle the propagation of misinformation, which you, knowingly or unknowingly spread.
Yeah because when your stats are like this, you would want to ignore other people personal success because you are unable to say anything else beside randoms stuff to make US tank look bad.
You free to ignore other people opinion , don’t have to actually reply to it when you don’t contribute anything else. I don’t care if you are bad but if you say that the other person personal success are not important while your stats are like that. Then you should not say anything, especially when you claim A or B good and own non of them
Meh, I call out shitty behaviour when I see it. Stat shaming someone isn’t necessary. A simple “Your own stats say you’ve never played top tier” would be sufficient.
It’s a lazy thing to do, rather than actually refuting their argument.
