1- Leopard 2A7HU, Leopard 2A7V
2- Strv 122B+, Strv 122B PLSS, Strv 122A
3- Type 10, TKX
4- T-90M (say what you want about its reverse speed or rate of fire, its armor and survivability are CRAZY.)
5- M1A2 SEP, M1A1 AIM
6- M1A2 SEPv2, T-80BVM, Chinese MBTs
7- Challenger 2E, Leopard 2A6/A6/A5/PSO, Leclerc S.XXI
8- Black Night, Merkava Mk.4s, CR3TD, rest of the Leclercs
9- Various etcs (rest of the CR2s and others)
10- Arietes
So no, the Abrams aren’t the worst tanks in Top Tier’s existence… but it’s still certainly disappointing that they are barely just “mid” or “average” instead of the peak performance machines you would expect from the pinnacle of the tree of the most formidable military superpower on the planet; specially considering all it would take for them to be better ingame is more careful and thoughtful modelling and/or implementation of more advanced variants.
Same goes for many 6, 7 and 8 MBTs that should be 2, 3 and 4s but aren’t just because their poor modelling artificially nerfs their capabilities by such an enormous margin (Merkavas and Leclercs, most of all).
The reload rate of the T-90M is simply awful, coppled with that atrocious reverse speed which makes the vehicle extremely inflexible, unresponsive and easily out-played. The protection is also barely relevant because most of your opponents know where to aim. I’ve also never struggled with killing these things.
T-90M is a glorified T-72B3.
T-80BVM is a T-80U on steroids, and the T-80U was already the better 11.3 compared to the T-72B3.
Strv 122 > Leopard 2A7V.
Strv 122 has superior armour right now, the difference in penetration is barely relevant as both vehicles aim for the same areas anyways The Strv 122’s are also slightly faster still.
It’s funny how you have no wind effects in the game yet we have maps where the trees are doing a mad dance like they are in a tornado.Wind would certainly play a part in the accuracy over range and make some of those silly shots less likely.
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.)
