good for pangolin would be measured in kills per day not kills per death
1 Like
25% winrate is a pretty good indicator that the tank itself is bad. Thank you for proving my point.
1 Like
Lmao. There’s been more than one post detailing exactly how the ring is supposed to be 200+mm instead of just 50mm.
1 Like
Okay, you missed the biggest point you could’ve made here. The Abrams tanks are missing 200mm-220mm of turret ring armor and currently still have just 50.8mm after Gaijin admitted its incorrect over how many years ago? Yet to be fixed.
This DU hull armor stuff, and DU anything is just a needless side track from useful arguments, and additions the tank could have based on available declassified info… Gaijin ain’t hearing the DU arguments rn. DU to my knowledge wouldn’t add much protection outside of multi hit capabilities (which every tank has in game as a product of how armor & shells are modeled).
At most you can have a valid argument for the hull armor array being upgraded depending on the model (and highly likely after A2). But it being DU is heavily debated, and not an argument they are willing to hear again.
If your issue is the turret ring, why ignore the fact it’s missing like 200mm~ to it? I just don’t understand the waste of a thread on a topic the devs ain’t gonna hear, and never have acknowledged without new concrete evidence…
1 Like
This is the biggest issue, the turret ring isnt volumetric and should ricochet more shots in game than it does.
2 Likes
I’ll say this, regardless of that guys argument. I gotta admit. The BMPT/BMPt-72 survives a lot of side shots that the Abrams would never. I’m not talking oblique angles either. I’m talking 90 degrees, high-penetration APFSDS doing 0 damage. That RNG can make a major diff on top of having small weakspots when reaction time counts often more than aim. Being able to click while being not so clickable is a major advantage no one talks about.
The Abrams ain’t the worst TT MBT in game but it ain’t close to accurate, neither is it the best. It’s still missing 200mm - 220mm of armor around the turret ring, still missing bulkhead armor around the fuel tanks that would increase hull protection. Both things gaijin acknowledged years ago. With that being said, with all these things missing from the tank the DU arguments, and all that seems sorta silly. As there are declassified aspects Gaijin has fully acknowledged being the case. It’s a waste of time going back to a subject they’ve dismissed without concrete evidence imo.
The Abrams isn’t god. It still has features relevant to the game (that wouldn’t make it busted) that are still missing. The Ring & Bulkhead fix aswell as Gaijin making damage models far more consistent would eliminate a lot of frustration I’d think.
2 Likes
Oh my goodness 0.5 K/D on BMP-2M is freaking positive
True, but same thing. It’s missing over 200mm of armor. Which is major if we are talking auto cannons 20mm to 57mm firing at it. Fixing that alone would make it a lot more fun, and dynamic to play.
Also the Abrams is missing fuel tank bulkhead armor which would make it even stronger in the hull. Gaijin has acknowledged this in a bug report aswell. I feel like if we are gonna argue for a buff to any vehicle, it should be the stuff Gaijin already accepted years ago, or recently. No offense ofc.
But unless you have perfect evidence of DU in the hull THAT ISN’T CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OFC. They ain’t gonna accept it. If it’s classified obviously they will take it down, and not use that data. Even if it’s correct/proving your estimations prior (that’s the policy, and why the Challenger 2 didn’t get a mantlet buff).
1 Like
And I have 82% winrate in M1A2T and 75% in M1A2? Checkmate.
Here you witness constant shifts in arguments to take away from the main discussion and premise of your post.
Sorry you see that, just how warthunder forums goes.
Wow, a tank in a minor nation carried by stronger tanks has a good WR, what a surprise.
I guess the J7W1 is actually good cause it has an above average winrate.
A break of more than a year? I’m not sure how long it has been since the introduction of the turret baskets for Abrams and Leo 2s. Though that would definitely explain your experience. If the turret basket is hit or destroyed, horizontal guidance is disabled currently.
carried by stronger tanks?
Abrams performs significantly better than any other top tier chinese MBT.
If taiwanese Abrams was being carried by stronger tanks, it would have high winrate but low KD and KpS, which isnt the case.
5 Likes
You’re not wrong it’s like they made the whole tank out of aluminium. Turret basket counts as turret ring, side skirts do nothing.
1 Like
every game now BMPT is on the loose
if abrams sucks so much why is the m1a2t the 2nd best performing mbt right now behind the 2a7?
Because you backstab with it because you can’t do it head on? no the armour sux but the meta is mobility and firepower. Doesn’t matter it has inaccurate model. I don’t really take the game that seriously. Look at BMPT’s it’s a joke right now.
You’re comparing a vehicle’s performance to how players perform in it and creating a connection where there is none.
Ground Vehicle stats tend to be extremely high when it first comes out because usually the only people who have them are well experienced. As months go by, the stats of these tanks will go down and eventually plateau.
There is also other factors that affect a vehicle stats, such as the current meta, team comp, the amount of people playing said vehicle within a month and probably many more.
To look at the stats of a vehicle without acknowledging factors that play a part is foolish. Using vehicle stats as your “source” is even more so.
Rather you should look at a vehicle’s strengths/weaknesses and compare that to others. Your analysis of that is much more compelling than using a vehicle stats
In the year that you were gone, the Abrams and Leopard family of vehicles got turret baskets. Gaijin linked the baskets to the entire horizontal drive module so when they’re destroyed you lose traverse. Gaijin also added a large hydraulic pump in the Abrams in the hull that does the exact same thing (and has a fire chance).
its still much higher than the us m1a2. two functionally identical vehicles yet the us one performs significantly worse. surely can’t be because average us mains are dog water now can it 🤣
1 Like