USA top tier needs a change

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
534

No wonder you consider M1A1 to be a Leopard 2A7V counter… if you don’t take into consideration one of the main parameters that define a tank’s capabilities.

A tank’s capabilities are defined by three main factors:

-Mobility
-Firepower
-Survivability

If you suddenly come in and say that survivability is irrelevant because “you just don’t get hit lol”, it’s no wonder you consider M1A1 to be a Leopard 2A7V counterpart- hell, going by that logic, even ARIETE should be a 1:1 counterpart to the Strv 122s as well (who cares about armor, just don’t get hit, right?).

Maybe you are an ultra-professional player who is virtually an invisible ghost to the enemy, like the Youtuber you reference; but not everyone is or plays like that; and when that’s the case, protection and survivability are what makes the diference between two tanks that are similar in every other way.

2 Likes
535

I never said that.

In fact, I’ve said on numerous occasions that the Strv 122 and Leopard 2 A7V should move up significantly. I’ve also said they are the flavour of the month and dominate everything else.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

1 Like
536

Leopard 2A7V/HU and the Strv 122s don’t dominate because “they are flavour of the month”.

The 122s have been flavour of the month for 4 years, then…? Now that’s a long month.

And while you may not have said that directly, you have insinuated that “there is no problem with the Abrams tanks having zero armor compared to the uparmored Leopards” because “who cares about armor if you just play not to get hit”, hence why you “find base M1A1 to do perfectly fine against these”.

2 Likes
537

Don’t be pedantic.

It’s a figure of speech, if someone says: ‘‘He was quick as lightning!’’ do you go: ‘‘Uhm actually, that’s not possible because lightning travels at the speed of light, and no person could possibly be that fast!’’ ?

What I said is very simple: I don’t mind getting 11.7 matchmaking with my M1A1 because I find it’s combination of extreme firepower, fantastic mobility, outstanding gun handling and great survivability to hold it’s own there.

That’s just my experience, my most recent play session has been a 37 - 1 K/D ratio with over 7 kills average per match.
That doesn’t mean I’m saying the Strv 122 couldn’t have done the same, don’t be so quick to think in absolutes.

1 Like
538

It’s not being pedantic.

“Flavour of the month” has a very simple meaning: a vehicle being successful because it’s a cool novelty and everyone, veteran players above all, is rushing for it.

Of course it doesn’t strictly mean it must be a month exactly and that’s not what I insinuated; regardless of time, “flavour of the month” is not why these tanks and Russia are dominating- they do so because the tanks and/or lineups are extraordinary compared to the rest.

The point is; when two tanks have the same gun handling, nearly the same firepower and nearly the same mobility… what makes the diference is survivability and protection. Also, “great survivability”? This thing is one of the most one-hit-killable tanks in Top Tier; and even if you survive 1 shot before being killed by a 2nd shot, the first is usually enough to completely cripple your tank; hull hits, for example, at best, kill your driver, destroy the hydraulic pumps, vertical and horizontal traverse mechanisms, engine, and transmission. So even if you survive that 1st shot, you will be a sitting duck for the next 30 seconds- and you will be executed during those. So what about that is “great survivability”?

I just don’t know what you have against the U.S. When the Abrams was introduced, you were very quick to make that famous “U.S is Currently Stomping Top-Tier, Solutions?” thread on the Forums… but you never did the same when Germany stomped when Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 were introduced, or Sweden with the 122s, or Russia when T-80BVM was implemented and stomping with the KA-50/52s, etc. Ever since, it really has just felt like you have something against the U.S.

3 Likes
539

\/

???

For me it’s the most survivable of any top-tier MBT that I play.

I consistently find myself taking numerous hits whilst still surviving the match regardless. I can’t say the same for the T-80U, T-72B3, T-90M, etc.
I’m sure the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A7V could be more survivable still, I just haven’t unlocked those yet.

Sigh… Not this again.

‘‘I find the M1A1 excellent’’
‘‘What do you have against the US?!’’

I’m just going to stop responding to you for a couple of days.

4 Likes
540

Read the whole thing maybe

I had an aneurysm there, edited it xD

It’s not like you have a great deal of them to judge anyway, so of course your view is based off an incomplete perspective that doesn’t show the true, full picture.

Not like there’s anything wrong with that- but it should be understandable that, to talk about some matters, actual experience across all the sides is needed to have a fully developed perspective about the matter.

And I can make lots of compilations, much longer than 15 seconds and many more than 3, of Abrams tanks dying to 1-2 shots while Leopards survive shots by the dozens.

A couple videos of people placing terrible shots into the cheeks, tracks and engine bay from the side doesn’t prove that it’s as survivable as you claim.

Because refusing to acknowledge that there’s a problem, and pretending that the situation is perfectly fine is, essentially, attempting to deny solutions to come, because “it is not needed”.

So yeah, that’s why I always disliked it when a topic/thread is made in hopes of reaching solutions to legitimate concerns only to be floded by people saying “uuuuh actually it’s perfectly fine, uuuh actually I don’t think there’s a problem”, etc. When you are trying to solve issues and someone gets in the way because they consider there’s no issue from their biased and/or incomplete points of view… yeah, it can get maddening. And I swear you are and have been doing this on each and every single thread or topic made to address the issues around American Top Tier, for years.

All I want is for every nation to be worth playing, and to be as competitive and fun as the rest.

Okidokie!

4 Likes
541

These hopes should be reduced asap anyway with these types of threads. Mainly because (and I’m sorry in advance for being extremely blunt) people who think that these threads will lead to anything and that Gaijin cares about threads like these are pretty delusional.

542

Oh yeah, we could get a Kikka treatment tank.

543

I forgot to reply to this!

The v4 prototype could come AFTER both v3s (and even then it would be a huge stretch if an addition); that way, the lineup would have 3x improved armor tanks at least.

Also, SEPv3 is the main upgrade in service nowadays, while Trophy is rather rare. Therefore, it’s only logical for SEPv3 and v3 w/Trophy to be separate; both for lineup reasons and historical ones.

Always think; we need as many possible good additions we can get. Skipping an extremely relevant vehicle just because you feel that it’s redundant is how many lineups wouldn’t be possible.

Imagine a Japan; it would be one Type 90, one Type 10… and that’s it? Because people would consider 90 (B), TKX and TKX (P) to be “redundant”?

1 Like
544

You know the Devs read them because they replay to them sometimes. Community managers have to read them as they edit them.They read this stuff and they know how we all feel. Whether they do anything about it is something else.

I have seen forum staff in the game occasionally,if they play then they must care and have views of their own.

545

Abrams is best in a hull down position

546

Oh I definitely agree with this. Having 2 seperate SEPv3s is fine for me if that means we could get one faster.

1 Like
547

Indeed! And also a better lineup.

548

USA could also use

M1 TTB
CATTB
M1 Thumper (120)
RDF/LT
M3/M2 Varients
LAV Varients

So many support vehicles missing

549

I mean, half of those aren’t even SEP level, so not the 2A7V/HU/122 counterparts we need.

Also- support vehicles wouldn’t be a part of the solution either. Not like a LAV or Bradley variant is going to save the U.S from the 2A7V/HU/122/BVM/M hordes.

CATTB could be interesting for Top Tier, but it would be sad if the U.S had to rely on a prototype vehicle to have a proper counterpart to some of the current 11.7s.

550

iirc either TTB or CATTB has more hull composite armour.

Regardless of which one if they do have more hull armour, it would be base M1A2? M1A1? composite just thicker.

CATTB also had significant increase in turret armour.

551

To be honest the CATTB will be busted if it ever gets added to the game if modeled properly. Not only increased turret armor but also spall liners, 140mm 5-sec autoloader with 900 plus pen, 2nd gen thermals, and a laser warning indicator it truly would be a monster of a tank.

3 Likes
552

Its nice to think about what is possible to get.

Then again, expecting Gaijin to model a NATO/Chinese tank correctly is just being delusional. CATTB would be wrong by every metric in comparison to its IRL self.

2 Likes
553

Ok, ok, ok, NOW I am interested!

I didn’t know about the 2nd gen thermals or the spall liners! And I knew it was autoloaded, but I didn’t know it was 5 seconds.

I thought it would be a slow ass firing tank with 1st gen thermals and M1A1-level survivability, hahah.

But now… now I am quite interested!