The tech tree HC has stayed a notch above the three M1A1s you can buy, Click-Bait/Weeb-Bait/AIM, I don’t think it’s a myth, it’s only part of the problem.
Those two are regularly trading blows with TT HC, so I don’t think it has anything to do with premium players being atrocious. Other high tier premiums suggest the same thing.
1 Like
you have no evidence to support that. And if its inaccurate, why are the stats so bad?? Yeah no kidding it has armor but it acts like it has no armor
To support what ?
That premium vehicles are performing up to par with their TT copies ?
It’s performing better because Chinese TT players are, on average, better. That’s why vehicles like the Leclerc, Merkava, and Ariete are 12.3+ when they shouldn’t be above 12.0 in their current state.
2 Likes
they are not thought thats the problem. But if so, why do tanks like the sepv2 have horrid stats even though those people must be experienced?
It’s a rethoric question, is more than obvious that the M1A2T Abrams would perform much better than M1A2 Abrams SepV2. Vehicles are moved based on data not how they perform in reality and compared to their counterparts, see some french vehicles, although some could easily move in battle rating, see french DF105 in comparison to the german DF105 for example.
But they are.
Well, the Chinese M1A2T, which is either on par or ever so slightly worse than the SEPv2 (I would argue that the SEPv2 is better, but it’s so slightly that saying it’s on par is also fine), has among the best stats at 12.7.
Part of this can be attributed to the more skilled multi nation players being the first to get the M1A2T, but it’s also partially because US players are major nation mains who are often not very good at the game.
Sure the 2A7s/122s still easily beat the Abrams (unlike what some nation mains want you to believe), but the SEPv2 is still easily a top 5 or top 10 MBT (depending if you want to rank all Leo 2A7s/Strv 122s as seperate vehicles or just all grouped as 1 entry). Saying that it sucks is absolutely wild.
9 Likes
Except they really haven’t. Their experience with top tier is getting stomped with their bought premium grinder of choice. They never actually LEARNED how to play the Abrams. They just played it a lot.
Because no one in their right mind will consciously aim for most protected parts of the tank. Just as you need to aim for lower plate/driver viewport/gun mantlet area in T series, so others have to aim at turret ring/lower plate in Abrams.
1 Like
Lol. I’ll focus on that since others have already pointed out some of the Abrams problems in 2026 War Thunder.(Turret ring, turret basket, excessive fuel tank spall).
Ukrainians themselves using these tanks on the frontline agree that the Abrams(and western tanks in general) are superior to eastern design. Better firepower, fire control, protection, survivability, and tactical mobility with the reverse speed. The Abrams has mostly been reported as struggling against drones hitting the roof(like any tank) and being hard to maintain for them(which is openly known even before Ukraine and isn’t a problem for the US since their logistic chain is huge and made to accommodate the Abrams).
You can see these western tanks taking a dozen drones before being fully disabled, then brought back to repair depot if they’re not too far in no man’s land. Meanwhile, we have probably a thousand videos now of Russian tanks instantly blowing up because an Alibaba drone struck their roof.
Like, are we just forgetting here that Russia lost(visually confirmed destroyed) 3200+ tanks(not APC/IFV counted) in 4 years? 🤔
3 Likes
Many of those “Russian tanks instantly blowing up” are drones dropping grenades or incendiary stuff… into open hatches… of not moving, rather abandoned looking tanks. With footage neatly cut into convincing propaganda piece, something both sides were and still are doing with great care.
At the same time, Abrams was proven to be vulnerable by something as “weak” as HEDP munitions yoinked from cluster bomb/missile/artillery shell for destroying soft targets like trucks or radar installations, dropped by loliexpress drone onto turret bustle.
Sure, western designs give significantly higher chances for crew to bail out in somewhat intact shape… but single drone with single explody potato will immobilize both Abrams, Leopard 2 and T-90M. Then it will be propaganda pounding to ensure vehicle doesn’t get recovered.
2 Likes
I mean, I saw it happening first hand when I was in Ukraine. Russian tanks are death traps, that’s just a reality when you store the ammo and fuel in the fighting compartment like that. A western tank is not going to cosplay the Apollo mission with the crew because a grenade was inserted into the tank.
And that’s the whole point? A surviving crew is more valuable than losing both the tank and the crew to a catastrophic explosion. Western tanks have proven to do exactly what they were built for, to save the crew in case of penetration. While Russian tanks have proven to be the death traps that everybody with some sense always said they were.
2 Likes
I agree that the sepv2 is good but the only real con is its armor. I can even get one shotted by almost anything with a dart.
This is part where you realize only Abrams has fully isolated ammunition from the crew. Hit Leopard, Challenger, Leclerc, Type 10, K2, Merkava and what have you in the hull and watch the fireworks. Just ask Turkish how far their Leopards tossed
If you want to be precise, Russian tanks for their time were designed with above average armor and tiny silhouette, to reduce likelihood of effective penetration. It didn’t aged well, with development of widespread thermal imagining and increasingly potent anti tank weapons, just like Abrams developers didn’t accounted for remote controlled toys dropping antitank ordnance from above. Not that it concerns Russians much, as meat assaults and attrition warfare is still their favorite military pastime, and here having more tanks beats having better tanks.
And just as Soviet union collapsed and tank development ceased, with the best in service 30 later is rehashed T-72, so did EU/NATO development in those 30 years of peacetime with rehashed Abrams/Leopards.
3 Likes
Check name, clear bias. Everyone forgets, no point in asking.
If the SU didn’t collapse from all the corruption, hampering, & whatever else. They could’ve had the Obj 187 instead of the T-90 → T-90A (T-72). It would’ve been a big improvement with its western style hull composite which eliminated the then well known drivers port weakspot.
1 Like
Western tanks using inert charge with their modern ammo do help alleviate the problem a lot. The rack on the Leopard is also in a better spot to survive top-down hits than center of mass autoloader. I never said they were immune to ammo racking but Western tanks certainly are much less prone to it.
Agreed, it was a good design in the 60s. But it aged very badly.
Russia has accumulated more losses in 4 years than any other major conflict worldwide since WW2(even the Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq war, or Korean war) for smaller gains than WW1. Even WW1 stalemated trench warfare still involved larger total geographic movement than what we’re seeing now from Russia.
When their doctrine is making WW1 look like maneuver warfare, you know it sure is working well. 🙃
Unique problem with Abrams is : They’re not in the Russian tech tree.
2 Likes