I don’t think they had T-62s in mind. @CinnamonToePunch does seem to believe that’s what I’m implying when I said this:
But I was actually referring to his (internalized) belief that the Abrams must be this incredible tank that’s far better than everything else, considering he wants buffs in-game to reflect that. When the Abrams only has incredible combat metrics in conflicts where it fought with a massive advantage against outdated equipment.
The Abrams is no doubt a tank at the level of the Leopard 2A4 and was designed to be on par or greater with what Russia had at the time (~1980s-1990s domestic T-72s with their full equipment and shells like the 3BM42). And it is superior to them in-game. What he clearly wishes for is utter dominance.
Because the Abrams is already one of the best tanks in the game, and every tank in the game has lacking features. But he wants the Abrams specifically to get buffed and feels it is “underwhelming”, even though the Abrams is the only top tier tank he ever played…
Russians when low winrate: Gib it the Highest pen shell in the history of warthunder and make it an event so alot of people can get it, Gib it the best AGM in the game and its range is +30km and draft them with Sweden and Germany in few matches.
When US winrates are low: Skill issue stop crying,whinning.
…as opposed to it being in the tech tree or an always accessible premium, where… less people can get it…?
And it having moved up in BR and having its ammunition nerfed, making it effectively worse than the German Leopard 2A4 that is 10.3, easily. Since you seem to think only high pen shells matter? Despite the 10 second reload, poor gun handling and other drawbacks…
On an Su-25… The worst plane platform in the game at that BR, and which is not any better than other top tier CAS options…
Because their tanks are far superior to tanks like the Ariete, Challenger 2, VT-4A1, LeClerc, etc;
Yet those tanks have far, far higher winrates and stats…
I don’t know why you people are still arguing with these american mains, everyone knows that trying to have a logical argument with them is like trying to play chess against a pigeon.
In spite of all technical documentation, primary sources and crew testimonies stating the opposite these people will never stop crying until the developers do what they think is real in their delusional mind.
It’s been proven over and over again that these people can’t argue in good faith so i really don’t get why you all still bother.
The Devs do whatever they wan’t and implement whatever they choose to, even if the community give factual sources, it will be acknowledged but expect for it to get a fix during 2 years.
The annoying thing is that there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed:
The M1A2 SEP and onwards should have increased turret side protection against shaped charge threats.
The turret ring being converted to volumetric is very much welcome.
The TUSK and ARAT being changed to researchable modifications like they are on the M1128 and T-72B3 should’ve been a thing from the start.
M1A2 SEP v3 should’ve probably been introduced alongside the Leopard 2 A7V.
It’s a shame that the attention isn’t on these topics for which there is solid evidence and/or reasoning, but instead there’s wild, unfocussed and unsourced claims about the M1 being oh-so-poorly modelled across the board. ‘‘Trust me bro, I know a guy that knows a guy that works at GDLS that says the M1 in War Thunder is a joke…’’
The devs do work with factual sources. EVERY single time there’s a “new source” US mains bandwagon on, it’s either a bootleg tank wiki, a propaganda video, or simply misinterpretation of the documents. For example, the famous WT content creator Spookston is a huge US tech fanboy but even him disagrees with the whole DU in the hull and spall liner for the Abrams. All because he can actually read and is not acting in bad faith like some of you.
Genuinely having to argue with the average US main on here is like trying to teach a chimpanzee english they should just shut up and post sources for the actual issues and not fantasy bullshit or stuff that wont come to the game ever
You’re so tone deaf that you pretty much volunteered to provide an example of bad faith argument.
Do remind me, we’re talking about time of implementation of fixes? We’re talking about the stinger? Was this source rejected or labeled as non-factual? Does the Abrams uses the Stinger as ammo and no one told me that?
In case you don’t know, the answer to all of that is “no”.
And see this is what happens instead of focusing on one thing at a time you go off on about something else entirely, this is why the abrams wont get “fixed” because gaijin sees you as just annoying and whining about everything and they dont need to pander to you so go spam bug reports about the abrams actual issues not bullshit DU hulls and once the abrams is fixed then go spam about stingers
I love how “The US is missing blank” threads always end up a crying contest with minor nations mains trying to invalidate the often valid complaints of US players.
Its not as if the US getting its vehicles corrected means your favorite nation cannot also get the fixes it needs, yet that is so often the attitude. Never save a drowning man, never argue with a minor nation main.
