You’re welcome : )
1 Like
To be fair, isolating US players to be on their own teams without the ability to have other nations on their team is the fastest way to get the Abrams buffed/the SEPv3 added lol.
Would it help or hinder if some tanks( The legends) played up to the expectation of most players but had the same SP and status as CAS.
So for example the Tiger 1 loses the Gun Barrel bullshit and the M1 loses the Turret ring BS and both become the “legends” we expect to a bigger degree but at a cost so as not to have them spammed at the expense of everything else?
There are many historically outstanding tanks that are plain underwhelming when you finally get to play them and I think that is one of the biggest disappointments of this game.Could doing something like this make "America great again " and make War Thunder more appealing overall at the same time?
I’ve been attempting to spade the M1A2 SEP and V2, and it has been quite challenging. As a casual, long-time War Thunder player, this experience has proven to be tough.
2 Likes
Funny since I’ve seen a lot more 1DLs now in USSR and Germany since the premiums went wide.
But US still doesn’t get played nearly as much since most know the turret neck weakness.
“Entitled” is a poor choice of words for someone who doesn’t even have any progress and is likely just trolling for trolling’s sake.
1 Like
u jelly
They’re already getting isolated, i’ve seen several matches where its just US against other nations, also the turret ring issue if it get fixed it would be a great advantage, it would mean a ricochet or a non-pen like when it happen when you try to shoot and turret ring on Leos and STRVs.
1 Like
Most of my games as the US I still have a couple other nations in my team. Of course most of the times these couple other nations are britain and israel, which are in even worse positions when it comes to MBTs, but at least they supply some decent players.
1 Like
We should not be arguing on these pointless issues, we need an actual change to the way devs treats reports. I feel like the devs got smarter after the May Strike and we haven’t even started discussions for the new SL and RP reduction.
USA is not the only nation that need urgent change, and I think it will be a better solution for us to change how devs treat us and our complaints first.
I made this in regards to this matter:
The SEPv2 report I am referring to:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/r3WnGWpkFcHH
It has basically been acknowledged officially that SEPv2 has DU on the hull, but Gaijin would rather keep it the same as M1’s over making a well-educated guesstimation based on the available sources just because the legal sources don’t provide the specific values on a silver plate.
Then there’s the turret ring issue, the fuel tank bulkheads issue, the SEPv2-not-being-able-to-take-off-4-tons-of-dead-weight-that-should-be-optional issue, etc…
4 Likes
HAUSAUHSUAHS, dudde are you denie the reallity?
It hasn’t though. Those claims have been debunked over, and over, and over again.
You’ve seen me break it down in much more detail before, so I’ll keep it short this time:
-
First source states: ‘‘frontal armor and side upgrades’’, which doesn’t refer to hull armour upgrades.
If hull armour upgrades were carried out, it would’ve said ‘‘hull armour upgrades’’ as it does with the SEP v3. We also know that the upgrades listed are relative to old M1/M1A1’s, you’ve even pointed this out yourself. -
ODIN isn’t a valid source, it’s a glorified wiki.
-
Yes, upgrades were developed, but there’s currently no proof they were applied. Me and plenty of other users have shown a whole host of sources which contradict that these specific upgrades were carried out.
Furthermore, you should be listing the date of the vehicle in that chart, not the date of when it was added in War Thunder.
The M1A2 SEP v2 is a 2009 DOI vehicle, the Leopard 2A7V and T-80BVM weren’t around back then. The best those countries offered were the Leopard 2A6 and T-90A, both of which have inferior hull armour.
A better comparison would be the M1A2 SEP v3, which we (for some reason) still don’t have in-game. That one does concretely feature hull armour improvements.
I’m not saying the hull couldn’t have been upgraded for the SEP v2, just that I’ve never seen a valid source that states they were.
3 Likes
Isn’t the consensus that historical dates don’t matter?
My chart is in regards to gameplay value. The Abrams family hasn’t received any hull upgrade since its first version, which came in 2018, and the Abrams family hasn’t received any significant upgrade since 2019.
But indeed; as you said, America has been kept a step behind for years in terms of historical variant upgrade dates.
That’s also part of my point; if the developers really believe the 2008 MBT doesn’t have any hull armor improvements compared to the 1979 one, they should just have gone straight to SEPv3. If Sweden can have 3x 122s backed by a 2A6, Germany and Italy can have 2A7V and 2A7HU, etc… then U.S should allow itself the luxury to get SEPv3.
In fact, they should implement two separate SEPv3s: with, and without Trophy. That way, we would have at least two MBTs with functional armor on par with the strongest opponents right now.
On the M1A1 to SA upgrade, it specifies that “it upgrades the turret front and side armor.” However, on the SEP upgrade, it only states that “it upgrades the front and side armor”; therefore not limiting the upgrade to the turret only, as was the case from A1 to SA.
Combine this Primary source with all secondary sources that back it up, and the conclussion is clear. Remember that not always a single source will bring ALL the information required when it comes to present day service classified MBTs, that’s why combining sources that back each other up becomes necessary.
1 Like
I think the diagram answers pretty rock-steady what he’s trying to convey.
Same turret, same hull, since 1996. (???)
Meanwhile, every other nation…
The only ones that don’t do it? Are France and Japan, and France only because, like U.S., they don’t spill secrets, and even the British TC got his arse reamed for showing the real talk manuals. So let’s bury this right there, ok?
I think I wouldn’t have minded the SEPv2 not having upgraded armor if they’d bothered to implement it as the Trophy testbed tbh. At least then it isn’t at large a downgrade of SEPv1 and instead more akin to a slightly worse sidegrade.
They don’t necessarily matter, but in the context of your chart they should probably be mentioned, otherwise it’s an apples to oranges comparison IMHO.
They’re not behind because they receive buffs in other areas, the M1’s are still among the best MBT’s at top-tier after the Leo 2A7V and Strv122.
I don’t understand why Gaijin is reaching for those strange ways of buffing the M1 instead of just introducting a more modern variant, perhaps there’s some good internal reasons for it that I’m not privy to.
I agree.
Like I said, the existing M1A2’s are still excellent.
I think having Trophy as a modification would do fine.
I’m also still waiting on the turret side armour improvements and turret ring to volumetric conversion.
2 Likes
The issue with this is that it would mean America would only ever have ONE tank with improved armor; SEPv3 with Trophy as a modification.
That is crippling the lineup. Imagine if Israel got Mk.4M’s Trophy as a mod for Mk.4B, for example.
If SEPv3 was implemented in two variants, with and without Trophy, at least it would allow the U.S to have two tanks with improved armor. If only SEPv3 with Trophy as a modification was implemented, that would mean U.S would never, ever have more than one single tank with functional hull armor. Besides, having Trophy as a modification would serve no purpose but to make the mod grind worse, since there’s no reason why you wouldn’t want Trophy installed if it’s available.
Average, at best, and the only thing keeping them relevant is the rate of fire buff. Otherwise, what exactly makes them excellent compared to all the 122s or 2A7s, which are the new Top Tier standard? The rate of fire buff is absolutely carrying the Abrams right now, hahah. Before the buff, they were completely irrelevant in Top Tier.
Just for you to gasp how serious the situation is: I am openly anti-CAS and I actively refuse to touch it in Top Tier… but even I have fallen as low as to end up using CAS when playing American Top Tier, because it’s the only way to keep the lineup relevant and capable.
I barely even play the Abrams anymore- I first-spawn HSTV-L and then go straight to AV-8B Plus. This makes me feel… filthy. I only spawn Abrams after I die with the Harrier or if I haven’t been able to get enough SP with HSTV-L.
The fact that the current state of American Top Tier is the only thing that has managed to break my spirit enough to push me to violate my moral code and try out C*S in Top Tier for the first time since 2018 should speak volumes…
(I also must admit I am having some guilty fun with the Harrier. C*S is so… easy. You just press click and people die, it’s hilarious lmao. But yeah, now I’m a part of the problem (when playing U.S only) and it’s disgusting.)
1 Like
I presume you’re referring to tanks with substantial enough hull armour that a portion of it can resist average 11.7 APFSDS?
I don’t see how that’s particularly unique though:
- Germany has 1 (2A7V)
- Britain has none.
- Japan has none.
- Italy has 1 (2A7HU)
- France has none.
- Sweden has 3.
- Israel has none.
Obviously Russia and China have a few, but that’s compensation for those vehicles being significantly worse in other aspects.
The Strv 122 and 2A7V aren’t the standard, they are the exception.
Leclerc, T-80BVM, Challenger 2, Challenger 2E, Black Night, Challenger 3, T-90M, Merkava Mk 4B, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, SEP v2, Type 10, TKX, M1A1 AIM, Leclerc AZUR, Merkava Mk 4M, Leopard 2A6, Leopard 2PSO, Leopard 2A5, T-80U, T-72B3, ZTZ-99A, WZ1001, VT4A1, etc. etc. etc.
That’s a massive list of MBT’s and they are all inferior to the 2A7/122’s, but that doesn’t mean that they’re bad vehicles.
I’m playing the base M1A1 to grind the last bit of my M1A2 SEP, and I’m still doing very well at 11.7.
Like Cavenub says, it’s the players that are the fault here:
4 Likes
I am thinking long term too.
-
Germany has 2A7V… and can get 2A6EX, 2E, 2A7+ and many, many others in the future.
-
Sweden, as you said, has 122B+, 122B PLSS and 122A… and can get yet another 122 and 123 in the future.
-
Israel has none because Gaijin artificially nerfed them. If the Merkavas were fixed, Israel would have 3x (for now) MBTs with at least 550mm KE without counting the whole powerplant and frontal bulkhead (would account for 600+ in total).
-
France has none, again, because of an UFP artificial nerf that is about to be reported for good. if the UFP is fixed and made as effective as the glacis, Leclerc would become way better protected than the Abrams, at a consistent 575mm KE vs the Abrams’ 370mm KE.
-
Regarding Japan and U.K; no, they can’t withstand the very best shells, but they can withstand 3BM46, DM43 and alikes with ease, as well as even OFL F1, 3BM60, Chinese shells and alikes at some ranges/angles and even more powerful shells too, at certain ranges and angles. +570mm KE > 370mm KE.
-
Italy… that’s on them. Ariete is just terrible. 2A7HU is amazing and who knows how Gaijin may be able to implement more tanks like it.
The point about the Abrams is not that it’s not immune to DM53, which is what you seem to believe to be my complaint; it’s the fact that it can be lolpenned by DM33 and 3BM42.
Limiting America to a single SEPv3 means that, in 2017, for example, Germany could have 6x uparmored Leopards, Sweden could have 4x of them and other nations could have as many uparmored tanks… while America would only have a single one before jumping to the 370mm KE ones. At least we should ensure we have, at very least, 2 of these for a foreseeable future.
They are the new standard to define the future. From now on, only equivalents will be coming.
And again, please, stop putting the Challengers and Type 10s on par with the Abrams in terms of hull armor. No, 580mm KE is not the same as 370mm KE.
Cavenub has a 4:1 K/D with ARIETE. He is in no position to blame other players’ performances on the Abrams, because, according to this logic, even the Ariete is amazing just because he can do well with it.
As I commented on his video:
Bro, you have a 4.0 K/D and 70% WR on ARIETE PSO, and you consistently have a 4.0-5.0 and 70-90% WR on every Top Tier MBT you play… no MBT could possibly be the problem to you lmao.
But just like you having a 4.0 K/D and 70% WR on Ariete PSO doesn’t mean it’s OP, neither does your performance on the Abrams mean it’s anything too impressive compared to any 122 or 2A7, or many others in some ways, even.
1 Like