Bruh, it’s just a game. Why are you so mad?
The T-80BVM has about 4 more hp/ton than the abrams, and the T-90m has 0.3 hp/ton less than the abrams. The T-80BVM is definitely more mobile going forward, but it trades it for reverse speed. The T-90m just has mid forward mobility and god awful reverse.
1 Like
Maybe I should’ve specified maneuverability instead of mobility, neutral steering and additional reverse gears are miles more effective in a gameplay setting and for that fhe Abrams is far more useful in transmission terms
1 Like
They are also heavier than any T-series tank
And original M1’s reportedly hit 70mph on roads for short periods so if anything the Abrams speed is nerfed because of governor being modelled
Even with governer, top speed should be 45mph which is 72 kmh not 68
Should also be able to take advantage of hills more since the turbine engine is better suited for it
It’s pretty easy to find hull down spots.
XD simping after one of the worst modern MBTs is wild.
1 Like
Yeah but the depression, also u are just as likely to die one shot by turret. Also not to say, ur only advantage is indeed manoeuvrability and most people probably want to emphasise it. I mean it is a bit of mess to say who is better but honestly both will likely lose ability to fight after a shot, be it horizontal drive for ABRAMS or autoloader for ZTZ99A.
ZTZs on average take less signifcant damage from shots to the turret, and as som1 who’s played tons of T-80, depression is not a major issue.
Abrams typically loses both engine and hori drive at the same time, so whilst ZTZ can move, aim, and fire one last shot, Abrams can’t aim or move.
U would casually die, or get taken out for at least 1 minute, so actually worse than ABRAMS to some extent.
If the rounds or fuel tanks don’t explode. ABRAMS is easier to pen, whilst ZTZ is a lot easier to one shot kill, even if u miss the auto loader there are plenty of fuel tanks.
Overall pretty even. The ABRAMS need to be fixed and ZTZ could do with spall liners. A new ABRAMS with better armour, or ZTZ with APS will be welcomed.
They shouldn’t explode at all, the fuel tanks on modern tanks are put up front as another method of protection against anti-tank munitions.
1 Like
We have provided sources to Gaijin both in that diesel fuel doesn’t tend to explode and the application of multiple fuel tank spill/explode prevention techs to Gaijin and they refuse to admit. Annoying but given the level of secret China put over all this, honestly not surprised that anything coming from now on, for most parts, be it tanks, jets or heli, it will be insanely hard to fix as providing evidence for vehicles produced in past 2 decades, there really aren’t that much solid evidence.
VT4A1?
Abrams should be able to choose fuel types to change performance and chance of explosion
Well, I’d certainly not want to be in a compartment with any sort of fuel if there was even a remote chance of anything pyrophoric making an appearance.
As I said less than 30 comments into the thread - their tank physics do not obey the laws of the natural world. Tanks in-game have ice skates for tracks and can’t climb basic hills. The ballistics is worse than that old 2D tank game where you shoot over the hills. Nothing in this game is realistic pertaining to ground units at all, it’s pointless to convince them to add realism either because the worst part of it all is that this is how they think the real world ACTUALLY WORKS.
All combat fuel and logistics used for the Abrams in modern day will not explode because for the most part, it is all some sort of diesel. The tanks themselves and the ballasts they are in are designed to prevent internal damage from over pressure, leakage, or combustion.
2 Likes
That’s why the crew of the Abrams is not in a compartment that holds any kind of fuel.
But they can put different fuel for more power maybe?
Power output is the same regardless of fuel unless there is a flow limitation, it may only result in improved or worsened mileage.
So top grade jet fuel would output the same power as plain diesel