As you know, I used to have the same opinion till a couple of days ago… and then I played a match with T/90M and changed my mind hahah.
T-90M’s protection and survivability is, in many instances, better than a 122’s. Sure it has disadvantages, but its survivability strength is so enormous I think the trade off is worth it.
Oh, I didn’t say it because of the armor or penetration, but rather, because of the thermals hahah
Maybe I am weird since they are just a soft stat, but, to me, being able to see any enemy at any range with perfect clarity VS only seeing two bright blurry pixels in a 144p deepfried screen is actually more important than having 680mm KE instead of 750mm KE (no shell can pen either anyway).
The glacis is just a part of the overall protection of those two vehicles.
Glacis > basically impenetrable on both.
Upper plate > penetrable on the 2A7V/impenetrable on the 122s
Breach/mantlet > penetrable on both but 122s is immune to lower calibre shells + eats up spall
Cheeks > penetrable on both from certain angles but on the 2A7V any angle that isn’t straight up head-on is a go.
If we were to look at just the glacis then yea, it might appear as if both are “just as armoured”, but once we include other parts of the vehicles, the disparity only then really begins to present itself. I keep dying to hits in the 2A7V that would do nothing to any of the 122s.
Had the glacis been the only difference between the two, then I would agree (so would @Necrons31467, likely) with you on the thermals being a slight, although generous advantage, but it isn’t because it’s offset by the upper plate, mantlet/breach + cheeks.
Granted, I’ve only started playing the T-80BVM and T-90M just these last couple of days, but basing your opinion off of a single match seems doubtful.
So far I’ve not struggled to kill the T-80BVM or T-90M, and playing them myself I find that the average opponent has no issues one-shotting you via the usual suspects in terms of weakspots.
I’ve also died numerous times now to a Hellfire 2 minutes into a match. Real fun.
Oh I am not basing off my opinion a single match, I had it ever since I started playing T-90M hahah
The thing is, I had to stop playing it (because of the bonuses thing) and I hadn’t touched it in weeks, so I completely forgot about its surreal survivability and went back to thinking T-80BVM was better because of the mobility and reload.
This match only refreshed my memories, hahah. Even if it isn’t as fast in reverse or reloading, its survivability feels almost like hacking. Sure, perfectly weakspot-placed shots will still kill it, but the average players in Top Tier are far from being perfect shots (which you are lmao).
So, while to a good player it’s as hard/easy to kill both T-80BVM and T-90M, T-90M is WAY harder to kill for average or below average players, if I had to put it one way. So the amount of potential lethal threats is reduced drastically.
This also assumes that the enemy team will also only have average tanks. Sure the skill of the current Abrams players also plays a role in this (don’t get me wrong).
However when a team fully made up of average tanks (Abrams) faces a team for the majority made up of way better tanks, the average tank will never reach a 50% winrate overall.
Also, you’re entirely wrong. People flock to what is strong. If the Abrams were better, the good players would flock to it and abuse it and its winrate would climb. Russia has had the same winrate of like 70+% for many years now even while it is played THE MOST, which means the riff raff of the playerbase glommed onto it and still the winrate stays the same.
10.2k BVM games vs 1800 M1A2 SEP V2 games in the last month from a self-selected set of veteran players on Thunderskill.
Gaijin’s fever dream for the Abrams tank variants in the game is poorly modeled and underperforms as a result. They don’t include spall protection, they undervalue the equivalent protection of multiple parts of the frontal aspect, and they use a much inferior and anachronistic round in the first Abrams - one from 1980 that it never used in combat instead of the standard round it got in 1984 - while the T-72s have their 1986 rounds .3 BR lower and Germany (and other nations) their mid-1980s rounds up to .7 BR lower in their MBTs.
I could go on about this all day but the bottom line is that there is no appreciable difference in average player skill AVAILABLE to the US top tier tanks or Russian top tier tanks. If Russian tanks arbitrarily had no spall lining modeled and weren’t given an extra 10% effective UFP and turret armor from sekrit documents, those same players would perform worse in the Russian tanks and flock to another, more effective top tier tech tree. These aren’t Harry Potter houses people got sorted into 8 years ago and can’t change.
Idk what you are smoking but you did some shenanigans stop portraying usa vehicles as bad bc they are absolutely not. maybe keep it on skill issue and if they add DU to hull which no good source stated that’s 1 not going to be 50% better (enough to stop DM53 etc) like the strv122 and for absolutely no reason unlike the 2A7… but anyway. please stop complaining about false things
The green areas in the original look like hes firing HE at the tank. Look at the external parts like the optics, non-functional APS system, Smoke launchers and the inside of the track. Why would an APFSDS show green for these areas?
Yeah he did some shenanigans, also the ERA on the side of the turret is green. I do know the projectile analysis is quite broken on alot of things. But then at that point just don’t use it at all instead of playing the victim when tanks are not.
Which are the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A7V.
These two are currently the best overall MBT’s, but that doesn’t mean that everything else is bad. The T-80BVM isn’t suddenly trash just because it’s worse than a Strv 122. Same story for the M1’s.
If you believe these vehicles are underperforming, feel free to share publicly available source material that proves it.
So this is a plain fabrication by you.
M774 was the main service round for the M1 Abrams and IPM1.
The developers of GHPC recently referenced primary US sources that showed M833 had significant production delays and wasn’t fielded en masse until 1985 at the earliest.
Even if we ignore that fact, M833 still wasn’t available in the year the M1 was introduced.
And more importantly, the 10.3 Abrams is already the best overall 10.3 MBT in the entire game, it has no need of superior ammunition.
Aside from all of that, quite a few M1 variants in War Thunder actually use ammunition that is newer.
IPM1 (1984) - M900 (1990)
M1A1 (1985) - M829A1 (1989)
M1A2 (1991) - M829A2 (1993)
The M1A1 has better firepower than the majority of 11.7 MBT’s, all whilst it’s at 11.0.
I guess I’m just halucinating when I check the player profiles of all those Click-Bait and AIM players on my team, and they’re anywhere between level 12-65 accounts with a lineup that consists of:
Bet that if there is enough people matching and create a “civil war match” like they did with the only nation (USSR), it still a 5 minutes match since every single USA player from both team will 1 death leave.
In reality tanks don’t explode, there is rapid combustion which very rarely can cause an explosion. Plus conditions must be met for an explosion to occur, for example, the amount of fuel vapor in the tank must be high. What we have in the game is a nonsense that was introduced to be. Without proper justification, without documentation.
tell that to almost every mbt in an active warzone, especially a certain set of T-series just going pop all the time in a certain country in eastern Europe.
(yes your referring fuel, but ammo explosions are quite frequent.)
Please don’t misconstrue what they said, they specified in Europe as is relevant to their game, also they don’t specify which document they were referring to either.
as per the following source M833 reached IOC in '84
and the M1IP was introduced in December of '84
Referring to the same table the basic ( series production ) M1s were conditionally released to units beginning late '81 and fielded in Europe in early '82 so even accounting for an unspecified delay units would have had access to M833 for longer than not by the time of Desert Storm.
To whom and where? and anyway its not as if its an M1 (Early) so why would it need to be held to some arbitrarily enforced initial configuration? (Even the Early F-14A isn’t held to a 1973 ~ 1975 config, but that of the later '78 SAC (and even then is arbitrarily missing features like the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS ) When we know M900 for example was used by M1 equipt units during the Gulf War.
Also things don’t get type classified without stringent and exhaustive testing either.
Which begs the question: What other major deployment threatre existed in which the M1 did field M833 then?
And I have no reason to assume that they would be lying about this.
You misunderstand.
I’m not the one that brings this up in these discussions. People generally claim that M833 is the ‘‘correct’’ round that the M1 should be using in War Thunder, and they also claim that the M1 historically entered service with this round as it’s primary shell type.
Therefore they’ll say that Gaijin is intentionally nerfing the M1 by withholding a round it always used historically.
The dates simply do not line up for that argument.
I also pointed this out myself, that the M1A1, IPM1 and M1A2 are using rounds that only entered service after the vehicles themselves did.
If I had to guess, CONUS would probably have dibs at least at first since they likely have a less complicated logistical train for newly stood up / converted units. Especially since it was TC’d in early '83 so would have been around.
I never said they were, only that they don’t actually cite or provide the source(s) they are refencing, so its not currently possible to cross-examine the nature and scope of the claim that was presented.
It may well have been the case for the M1IP units.
Considering M900 (which was likely an only M1 shell, so Marine units with the M60 would have had M774 / M833 at best ) was TC’ed in Dec of '89.
M833 likely had a good chance of being a significant portion of the inventory of Deployed Units (both 105mm M1 & M60) by the late '90s in the lead up to the initial stages of Desert Shield / Storm would have had access to in reliable quantities considering the timeframes and how slow logistics can be.
So is probably where the mistake is being made since it is the first combat action undertaken by the M1 series and so is likely to be what the majority would consider the starting point for the M1 also being much of what would be available without going to lengths to confirm these things, let alone aligning with the experience of those who have written about said events.
They may for some specific units but I couldn’t say as a whole since its not like the Army all to much published of the requisite data to make said confirmations since stockpiles tend to be one of those things kept relatively close to the chest.
It depends on the specific arguments being made, and as a whole how much people are actually relying on documented sources, not hearsay. Since there isn’t all too much specific info out there about pre DS M1 Units and their activities, or specifically about the two battalions that used the 105mm equipt M1s.
