Interesting.
What a heartfelt response that definitely adds something to the discussion.
2 Likes
You said “improved frontal armor” only implies “improved turret armor”. lol, lmao even.
Common arguments against the M1:
- ‘‘T-80BVM is massively superior’’
- ‘‘M1’s are bad in CQB maps because of their weakspots’’
- ‘‘Trading mobility for armour is better, and the armour of the SEPv3 would’ve been a better buff to top-tier USA than the reload buff’’
So firstly, the T-80BVM is not being picked over the M1A1 (!).
The Russian line-up also consists of:
- 11.7 T-80BVM
- 11.3 T-80U
- 11.3 T-72B3
- 10.3 T-80B
American line-up consists of:
- 11.7 M1A2
- 11.0 M1A1
- 11.0 IPM1
- 10.3 M1
If anything, the Russian line-up in theory should be superior going by the BR’s.
Secondly, this tournament centers around CQB maps, and yet all the best player are defaulting to using M1’s pricisely for this reason.
Thirdly, all the best players I know of have stated the reload buff was a much bigger buff to top-tier US than an M1 with heavier armour.
The M1A1 is also being first-picked due to it’s mobility advantage. Good players will consistently hit weakspots, no matter the frontal armour. At that point mobility is more important than armour.
Fourthly, I’ve always said that the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A7V are superior to the M1’s, don’t strawman me by implying I’ve stated otherwise.
My argument is, and always has been that these M1’s are extremely competitive against the average top-tier MBT. Not everything is a Strv 122.
T-90M wouldn’t change a thing, it’s just worse than a T-80BVM or T-80U in that meta.
2A6/PSO is virtually identical to the 2A5 for gameplay purposes, and the 2A5 is also not being favoured here.
The M1A2 is just a superior 2A6/PSO right now.
5 Likes
I didn’t?
…
You quite literally did.
You’re missing context. He’s talking about the allowed vehicles in a specific tournament.
1 Like
I “quite literally did” if you only look at that cherry picked statement that you decided to slice out of my comment.
“Cherry picked” As if you did not say ESPECIALLY. “Especially” would imply that even without the extra information, the point still stands.
Especially does not imply anything, it is a transition into context of the prior statement and why it makes sense.
Go ahead and try to rationalize your cherry picking if you’d like, it’s still cherry picking and you’re still misconstruing my statement to make me look bad.
From my count, removing nearly all light tanks from the game, and the 2A6, PSO, 2A7V, 122A, 122 PLSS, 122B+, and T-90M means that the Abrams is not very good currently lol.
- True (currently)
- True
- True
Which is why the “removing nearly all light tanks” is a big deal. When the lineups of other nations basically make it so that the US’ lineup is the most mobile overall, the Abrams appears more mobile than it actually is. Shocker.
In terms of what? Fire rate only?
5 Likes
I addressed each of those points and explained why they’re false.
You then conveniently ignore all my arguments.
If you have absolutely no counterarguments, I’ll presume you’ve just conceded on each of those points, and you’re just being petty by saying ‘‘True’’.
‘‘The world of flat’’
‘‘Here’s a bunch of evidence and arguments that show otherwise’’
‘‘Nuh uh, it’s totally flat’’
That’s about the extend of your reasoning.
I’d love to know which light tanks you’re thinking of that are presenting such a massive threat to an M1A2, and whos removal gives the M1’s such free reign they otherwise wouldn’t have.
- HSTV-L? Likely not.
- Puma? No chance.
- 2S25? I’d certainly be amused if you considered this to be the threat.
- 2S38? The vehicle that the base M1 and Leo 2A4 are already farming XP on?
- Type 16? A 9.7 vehicle?
Implying that’s not a major advantage?
Are you really going to argue a 2A5/2A62PSO is superior to a M1A2?
4 Likes
I mean they are self-evidently true, though.
- HSTVL - Can frontally pen
- 2S25 - Can frontally pen
- 2S38 - Can frontally pen
- Type 16 - Can frontally pen
In terms of armor, the 2A6 and PSO are better, and the mobility isn’t much worse. The fire rate isn’t much worse either. I’d say the 2A6 and PSO are roughly equivalent to the M1A2 currently.
8 Likes
They also have the turret fighting compartment coated with spall liners, unlike the Abrams, which, ingame, has no form of spall-suppression/protection at all.
4 Likes
Abrams will be faster than any ifv except hstv and centauro. Hstv is in US tree and centauro is super rare and have many other problems.
And any tank will be more dangerous front-on than any ifv with autogun.
Everything is bad compared to 2a7/122. It’s not unique case. It is 2a7/122 problem, not abrams problem.
The point is, everyone should receive 2A7/122 counterparts with equal capabilities.
Also, I wouldn’t say Type 10, TKX, T-80BVM and T-90M are bad compared to them; these tanks are the ones that hold up best against them. Type 10 and TKX have extraordinary mobility and firepower, T-80BVM has extraordinary mobility and protection, and T-90M has incredible protection and survivability.
Yes, they all have downsides (subpar armor against DM53 in Type 10/TKX’s case and bad reverse speed and gun depression on T-80BVM790M), but their strengths make up for them rather well.
Meanwhile, the Abrams’ ONLY advantage is the quicker reload; in every other way it’s either barely similar, or significantly worse.
8 Likes
Most nations don’t have any. Same as some nations don’t have proper counterparts for f-16c or pantsir and will never have.
1 Like
‘‘It’s self-evidently true that the earth is flat’’
To continue the metaphor.
Again, you’re just incapable of providing a counterargument to what I said.
A Gepard can frontally penetrate a T-64A.
That doesn’t mean the Gepard is negating the T-64A at 9.3.
You already know what your argument is moot because none of those vehicles negate the M1A2’s.
Their inclusion in that tournament would’ve been completely meaningless as none of those vehicles would’ve been picked over their alternatives.
Your claim that the M1A2 only strives because it’s protected from facing these light tanks is absurd, and you’ve made no compelling argument otherwise.
False.
But still worse.
But still worse.
So, that leaves us with: No 50. cals, worse mobility, worse reload, worse hull armour, worse gun depression, worse thermals (compared to SEP), unprotected hull ammo stowage, smaller ready racks, no protective fuel tanks and 3 crew lined up on one side of the vehicle.
2 Likes
7 Likes
my topic is older