I understand I think the abrams is a pathetic tank, keeping in mind my top tier nations are Japan Italy and china, I don’t think the abrams is the worse vehicle in the game at top tier as I believe the Chinese tanks hold that title they are just awful. But it is riddled with issues, mainly being its weakspots are massive and any form of hit to it will take it out of the fight even if it actually survives the round. This is an issue I think people don’t see yes the abrams can easily take two or three rounds to kill but its more that its not fighting back after that first round hits it. It round is good and its reload is average, probably middle of the pack in mobility, its just honestly the weakspots and how easy it is to disable that makes it pathetic its legit the only thing I see in my type 89 at top tier and think they are dumb for pushing me in it considering I’m always bound to win the fight with how easy that turret ring is to punch through. I also feel like people maybe aren’t understanding your point which is things like we get new abrams models that have weight increases making them slower but no armor increase to match or the era panels not really being useful in any manner since they dont stop most top tier atgms and such. Its an alright tank just kind of hindered by unrealistic weak points and the select addition of tank modules.
Yes finally someone who gets what I’m saying, M1 Abrams is the crown of US tank tree IMO.
yes every Abram is the exact same tank, there is nothing to entice you to get the next one, and what should be there isnt even there, like SEP V2 has been documented to have Trophy APS, not only that but the M1A1 FEP also has the Trophy system on it (plus little small think called Far Target Location (FTL) that lets it see through smoke screens)
gonna slightly go off topic and rant but the abrams line (Compared to every other tank in game) is basically the jack of all trades type of tank.
Spoiler
Doesn’t have the best armor layout or protection in general, But isn’t as terrible as an ariete.
Reload is basically on par with everyone else. only beating the USSR sometimes in specific situations.
Gun handling’s pretty decent to great, but lets be honest, only works well with reload.
Mobility isn’t bad, able to usually keep up and be slightly faster then other tanks. Not enough to make a difference in matches though due to the small size of most of em.
Is “Heavily” reliant on crew skills. So anyone that doesn’t ace their tanks are basically on par with the lower end of tanks. (At least in terms of reload, controllability, and gun handling)
Not to mention the turret cheeks only work when your looking straight at the person.
Don’t even get me started on its neck, obviously not artificial Nerf “turret basket”, and lack of spall protection inside the armor itself.
But if you know Exactly how to play the Abrams (Like tournament players) You will come out on top against most enemies specifically because it’s a good jack of all trades.
But anyhow, I’d say the m1a2 would be the final decent abrams to get sense it does do better in the sniping roll due to its DU turret and better shell. (Sure, it won’t be lol penning any good armored tank, But its a higher chance at least)
The AIM might have been slightly better for sniping role since it has endgame Abrams’s FCS, and turret armor is also identical to M1A2’s, trade off is slightly weaker shell but we could aim much better with 13.x zoom instead of 10x from the first M1A2, the gen 3 thermals of AIM do come in handy for a lot of scenarios, especially in a br where miliseconds matter.
im not gonna go check what i said but the spike is 80% of the tandem atgms at that br and it sucks so i reckon my point still stands
I’d disagree, I firmly believe that the M1A2 is the best Abrams for its BR. I think 12.0 is a decent BR for it (maybe a bit low), but it has the top round, good reload, and decent turret armor. Plus the vehicles around it (M1A1 HC, HSTV-L, ADATS) are also very good so its overall a good lineup, whereas at 10.7 you are pretty limited in my opinion. Plus, just looking at KDs alone, my M1A2 is my best performing Abrams, followed shortly by the M1 IP. But thats just my opinion.
HC is Marine Corps and gets a dozer blade and ircm
Not massively surprising. The M1A2 barely differs from the M1A2 SepV1 and yet is 0.7 different (Slightly weaker optics and a lower thermal gen) Great for larger maps, but probably doesnt matter on most of the CQB maps in-game
but otherwise is the same tank in all other respects right?
Practically every 120mm armed Abrams aside from the M1A1 are identical. Slight differences in ammunition, optics, and thermal generations, but they all play the same. I wish they were spaced out a bit more considering the US doesn’t really have an 11.0-11.7 lineup anymore. (I am aware there are vehicles there, but you only have the IPM1 at 11.3, and the M1A1/ADATS at 11.7. There is a marketplace Merkava at 11.3)
Yep, kinda my point. Youd expect do best with the lower BR ones at any time where the Optics and Thermal gen arent noticable differences.
Honestly… They are under BRed in their current state. Especially those with A2 + 5 second reload. I think a few need to lose A2 and return to A1 to remain at their current BRs, or they need a reload rate reduction
Yea the SEP and SEPv2 is just there for the sake of giving US 12.7 even tho they are not a 12.7 tank lmao.
Why are they not 12.7 tanks?
They are within top 3 12.7 tanks in game currently
I dislike how Gaijin made them all the same. Before they were all given M829A2, each one played slightly differently and got lower BRs as a result. Now there’s no point in grinding all of them if they all play the exact same.
SEPv2 is maybe a 12.7 thanks to its newly added LWS and more smoke which is great, it helped me lived more than a few times in the age of FnF CAS, but the SEP are barely any different than the M1A2 at 12.0 despite being .7 BR higher
The Turrets are just as strong as a Leopard when you play hull-down. The sheer fact that there are still M1A2 at 12.0 when the Merkava Siman 4 and Arietes are 12.3+ is insane.
ehhhhhhhhhhhh in my experience the Sep V1 is stronger, generally more resistant to shots especially in the turret, and its drastically easier to spot targets with thanks to new optics (I don’t rely on thermals very often- they often times are more a hindrance then help in my opinion).
BUT this argument is anecdotal so is a logical fallacy.
Edit: Both tanks generally are rather weak in CQB thanks to the massive hull and size of them, but again the SEP with the add on package is definitely more survivable in my experience.
Yeah, and I agree on bigger maps. But surely not useful on the majority of small maps where you are rarely firing over 500m
Honestly? You’d be surprised. My counterargument is Alaska, that main road that connects B and C points is littered with stuff. The finer optics help me figure out if its a tank or an object, and also make it easier to actually aim at the small parts of the tanks that are sticking out. It does make a difference, but its nominal map to map.
I will also say though that I feel like a majority of the maps I have been getting as of recent have been big sniping maps. I haven’t seen many city maps at top tier, not currently at least. So that also may be why I feel it as hard as I do.
I’d argue the Abrams isn’t good at CQB, but it’s situational. If you’re in a position you can hide your hull or force an enemy to round a corner, you have a very good chance. If you’re the one pushing a corner, the Abrams doesn’t do well.
It’s not. No. The T-series tanks are a million times better simply thanks to size and smaller weakspots (coming from experience, not just saying this. I’d take a T-72M1 or Turms out in CQB any day over Leos or Abrams). Its a heck of a lot easier to aim at the LFP of the Abrams (which is huge) and the turret ring of it then the trunnion or LFP of a T-90.
But thats CQB.