All NATO stuff is played roughly the same or quite similar (MBTs). Hull down, good reload and just shoot. Much more of the maps in general are usable to NATO tanks since you have superior vertical gun movement, better speeds usually, more crew…All this makes a certain quite safe playstyle possible, meanwhile with RU a lot of the map is either “push forward, hope for the best” or invent/find some other routes to get your gun on the enemy. You cant possibly play the sniping game (Peekabo) since you have practically no reverse speed, vertical gun movement in the downward direction is practically none existent, 3 man crew and generally overall lower speeds/manuverability.
I am not really saying that RU needs a buff or nerf, neither does NATO…what I would actually propose is that devs bring an end to the pixel hunting gameplay style which is HUGELY unrealistic
I mean NATO tanks are gimped to the ground, they would honestly perform way better than right now if Gaijin did its job.
And by NATO i don’t mean the US since it gets underperforming tanks compared to Sweden-France-Germany.
I cant speak for any of those from the perspective of a heli pilot since I dont have them and never will thats for sure (hate heli gameplay) but having had the experience to be on the receiving end of both… Pantsir vs JAGM is a win for JAGM EVERY SINGLE TIME. Havent fought vs 28NM with SPAA but my Abrams blows up just as easy as does my T90M or BVM from JAGM
8x vs 16x. I rest my case.
T90M,BVM have way more chances than Abrams to survive any Air-to-Ground missiles thanks to the ERA all over their tanks.
ALL tanks and I do mean every single tank in the game is underperforming compared to any sensible logic by real world standards…there is literally no situation EVER in which a tank that got penetrated would after 20 seconds keep fighting, pixel hunting again, reloading shells in 5 seconds while going 60+ on rough terrain jumping up and down etc…its all fake and impossible to do but for the sake of gameplay some for better some for worst is what we get… Vikhr, dont know the range in the game but we do have video confirmations of it engaging tanks at 13-14km, doubt we have that range in the game. Grass isnt always greener on the other side
That really does play a role in some cases while in other it absolutely doesnt matter…its not the issue with RU vehicles but with Gaijins implementation of ERA…RU vehicles just seem to benefit from it because they are covered with them…one thing that is also HIGHLY inaccurate is that laser guided stuff can be guided into the general area of the tank and not exactly or approx. where the laser is pointing like the turret top. Game mechanics are the core issue, not the tanks imo and they need to change! Not nerf or buff of certain vehicles
I’d say nerf every Russian tank since ERA is overperforming alot, and we can have a fair and accurate matches.
What would you nerf on RU tanks?
Brother is out here soloing everybody. god speed. Anyone who cant see the clear disparity in the game right now need to look at the queue numbers. people like to play the side that wins or is “meta” the Abrams isn’t bad but by god is it the worst experience.
What I always find hilarious is how people’s defence that the “Abrams is the best tank” is that “it has good mobility and firepower”, and that “armor and survivability don’t matter because just don’t get shot, duh”.
My brother in Christ, “good mobility and firepower” are standard for practically EVERY single Top Tier tank.
Any tank with ~600mm pen and 5.5-6.5s reload has good firepower.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s 589, 615, 629 or 652mm of pen, it’s not going to have a practical difference in 90% of the scenarios.
Every tank has a ~600mm pen shell.
Every tank, except for the Leopards and RU/CN tanks, has a 5 second reload already (4 second in Type 10’s case).
Every tank has a ~65 km/h top speed with ~25 HP/T power-weight ratios.
So no, “good shell and mobility” don’t make the Abrams special at all. That’s the BARE minimum a Top Tier MBT has.
What is it that makes a tank have an edge when firepower and mobility are so similar across the board…? Yes, you got it right: ARMOR and SURVIVABILITY, both of which suck on the current Abrams tanks, partly artificially.
“Just don’t get shot duh” is bullcrap. Without bothering to explain why, I’ll just say, by that logic, you could argue that Ariete AMV is aktchually better than Leopard 2A7V because of the faster reload, because “who cares about armor and survivability anyway”.
The 90M has horrible mobility, combined with one of the worse shells and the worst reload. Even the BVM still has worse mobility than the Abrams and other MBTs. On top of that, the BVM also has a 1.4s slower reload (or you can use 3BM42 at 12.7) and a 6°/s slower horizontal traverse, shared with the T-90M. The poor depression makes the firepower even worse.
So let’s look at the armor, shall we?
The LFP is a massive weakspot that is quite reliable. The only way to whiff is to shoot very low and hit driver+engine. Moving upward we have the driver port which is a very recognizable weakspot that’s a 1 hit kill. Right above that there’s the turret ring, while smaller than the Abrams, it can still be hit consistently and just like on the Abrams it either cripples the tank or kills it outright. Above that, you have the breech which is still quite a large target but recently it can be unreliable thanks to the trunnion (another awesome addition pushed by Redditors). In case of the BVM, most of the turret face not covered by the ERA can also be penetrated. It’s also not difficult to hit. Moving up once more, you have the turret roof. On the T-90M, it is harder to hit due to the turret not being completely trash, but you can still reliably hit the: commander, autoloader, breech and the gunner. The BVM roof is free real estate.
Overall, the BVM armor has one strongpoint which is the UFP, covered by ERA. Once that’s gone, it’s also penetrated easily. The T-90M sacrifices a huge chunk of mobility and firepower for a better hull and turret protection but still largely keeps the same weakspots, only smaller.
Now for the Abrams.
The LFP is a weakspot, shooting can result in the driver+engine combo as well. The UFP is a ricochet, when unangled due to terrain it can be used as a reliable weakspot. There’s no driver port equivalent. Turret ring is a weakspot too, however, it is considerably larger than on the T-90M and T-80BVM. Usually, it’s the best weakspot to go for. As for the turret, the turret face is much better protected compared to the BVM and it’s roughly the same as the T-90M. The mantlet is a bit larger and the trunnion does isn’t as inconsistent as on the T-90/80 (anecdotal). As for the turret roof, the Abrams can’t be reliably killed through it, although the gunner sight shot occasionally kills the commande, sometimes even the gunner.
Overall, the Abams has a smaller number of weakspots but they’re more defined. The armor is comparable to the T-90M and much better than the BVM.
Okay, so… while looking at them at a flawlessly perfect 0º flat LOS angle they may appear to have similar weak surface areas, you are forgetting two things;
1- The Abrams is considerably larger than the Russian tanks. So when you put them side-by-side at full-true scale, you can see the weakspots are also larger as well, even if proportionally it may seem like it covers the same area of the tank’s frontal profile.
2- The Abrams UFP only works, exclusively, on flawlessly flat angles. The VERY second your hull is angled slightly downwards, the UFP loses its critical ricochet angle and becomes a one-hit kill weakspot.
T-80BVM and T-90M have the exact same horizontal traverse as the Abrams; 40º/s. The reload is only 1.4s slower if you count on the Abrams having an Ace crew, which… practically no one has. Full+Expert is a 5.4 second reload; which is still a second faster than T-80BVM, but not 1.4. That 0.4 counts :P
In my opinion, T-80BVM could have access to 3BM46, sacrificing some penetration for the full 6 second reload!
EDIT: I will also add that I believe the Abrams and Russian tanks are more or less well balanced against each other, in an asymmetrical way! It’s the Leopard 2A7V, Leopard 2A7HU, Strv 122B+, Strv 122B PLSS and Strv 122A that are uncontestedly superior.
The Abrams have a higher ceiling and floor with better dynamics, the Russians have a lower ceiling and floor with better armor and survivability, but worse dynamics. Russian tanks will do better on average for casual players, while Abrams have more potential on the hands of more competitive players.
Then there’s the uparmored Leopards, which are just… better at everything else than anyone else, with a lower floor and higher ceiling simultaneously xD
I wish the Merkavas, Abrams, Leclercs, Type 10s, etc, had their issues corrected to close the gap; for stronger variants (SEPv3, XLR…) to come, and in Russia’s case, 3BM46 for the T-80s, improved variants (2020s+ 90Ms and 80BVMs), and even looking at T-14s.
I apologize, for whatever reason i was looking at the stock values. As for reload, ace crew is still very much achievable and even without it, it still has a 1.1s advantage (Since the expert reload is actually 5.3).However, tanks should be balanced based on their maximum performance.
Same goes for T-90M roof and M/BVM hull roof.
Yeah
Survivability is also very much debatable as the Russian tanks lack blowout panels and a 4th crew member + crew spacing. T-90M has spall liner ig.
I do believe that when talking about X vs X, only ace/expert crew and good players should be considered.
I think it’ll be a downgrade since unarmored turret + even longer reload
No. There are plenty of tanks which lack good mobility at top tier (T-72s, T-90s, Non-2E Challengers, 2A7). The only vehicles that really contest Abrams in mobility are 2A5 spec Leos. Leclerc could compete but the molasses on its tracks say otherwise. TKX/Type 10 have abhorrent transmissions and are more on par with SEP V2 (TUSK) in terms of mobility.
And… all of that is false. There is a HUGE difference between 5.3s and 6.4s. You can call most vehicles’ firepower good, but Abrams has exceptional firepower coupled with benefits that other 5s equipped tanks lack.
Let’s see here:
Ariete AMV has good firepower! AWFUL turret.
Leclerc has good firepower! Down 50mm of pen which is very much helpful for consistency, and abysmal turret.
Merkava has good firepower! While it has a far better turret than that of Ariete or Leclerc, its still subpar compared to Abrams.
Challenger has good firepower! No. 3-Round ready rack and 1/3rd of your turret is a weakspot. L27A1 is a tragedy.
As for Type 10/TKX, it has an array of its own problems in gun handling, gun angles, transmission, turning, turret armor, etc. But hey I guess the firepower is amazing if you ignore all of its other characteristics and the flaws of the chassis!
I did not mention the other flaws/drawbacks of AMV/Leclerc/Merkava/Challenger as i’m honestly too lazy, though you’ve definitely heard and know what they are.
False. There are plenty of tanks that have below 25 hp/t and lack top speed compared to the rest (T-72, T-90, Non-2E Challengers, 2A7)
Abrams, aside from autocannon protection, has one of the better armor profiles at top tier. Great turret, only beaten by Leos and T-90M, and autobounce UFP which defo saves you from time to time. The only real drawback? Frontal autocannon protection, although the side composite skirts are great.
Abrams is also quite survivable, often tanking a post penetrating shot or two due to lack of vulnerability to crew-kill, ammo-det, fuel-explosion related deaths. You can also learn how to shoot without a turret ring using driver assistance mode, though I don’t really know how to explain it.
Yes, don’t get shot applies. But you need a functional turret at top tier, something nigh all 5s equipped vehicles lack, and a plethora of others as well.
Zero worries!
I think survivability for all of these tanks is just… oddly inconsistent.
Russian tanks either take 3 shots across the fighting compartment with no damage, or blow up in 1 hit; Abrams’ entire crew either dies in 1 shot, or survives like a sponge. That’s why I didn’t mention survivability, hahah. Too oddly inconsistent across the board.
I believe Full + Expert is fair, as it’s the maximum anyone can and should aspire to. Ace is exclusive to those who pay real money or who spend unhealthy amounts of time playing a specific vehicle, so it shouldn’t be taken into consiretation.
Sidegrade, at least! Imagine the front armor… wait, even longer reload? Do we know anything specific about it? I have no idea how fast it would reload.
In 95% of scenarios this perfect angle is in effect. Also, a lot of tanks’ armor gets significantly weaker when they’re angled downwards. T-80Us and B3s get cleaned through UFP for example.
True.
I can get behind that.
Could be 13.0 with CAS moving up to 13.7 surely.
I will add, Abrams has higher ceiling than 2A7/122 due to reload/ammo stowage. You can carry an almost infinite amount of APFSDS in Abrams and get away with it, and the lack of rounds on 2A7/122 has griefed me so much I can’t even count.
TLDR is that it’s still the AZ autoloader but this time further away from the breech so it takes even longer
Hello, i’ve laughted a lot on this topic from the absudity US player can say when they say that the abrams is bad, no its not a bad tank and no it does not exel in any category but it is good in every category :
The mobility is not the best but its far from beeing the worst
The reload is ok for a crew that was build from 1.0 ( if you are a compulsive premium buyer then don’t complain about the reload ) you can get a reload of around 6.0+ sec with a basic crew while the average reload in top tier is around 6.3 sec
The perfomance of the APFSDS is really good, 2nd to best if im not wrong
The armor also is not the best but still not the worst ( check the ariete armor wink wink )
Most of the abrams i kill in game are just because they did not play very smartly, im just an average player with ok stat and i can say without any problems that US player in top tier are not as efficient as other, and for a proof you can just check the alltime stat of top tier winrate on statshark:
Italy has the best winrate all time with a much worst MBT ( if we are only talking about MBT ) so if the US has a worst winrate with one the best MBT ( If played corectly ) then that mean that US player are just not performing as good as other and loking at what _Ladies_Man_217 has sayed on this topic im pretty sure he fall in this category, if you don’t like the way the abrams is modeled in War thunder then go play another nation with a MBT that match your play style better, if you really want a tank with a lot of armor then go play sweden.
( Softened text because of community guidline )
Well… the barrel is a full meter longer than previous 125mm barrels, and it may come with 3BM69, so… it should have extraordinary muzzle speed and penetration, at least!
I also expect the hull armor to be INSANE, and to be extremely survivable. So… even if rate of fire remains a weakness, it could still be a neat tank.
Also, high reverse speed capability!