There’s basically 2 types of tanks at 9.0-11.7, ones with russian ERA that allow areas other than turret face to have survivability against darts, and ones that don’t, but have better gun depression and reverse speeds.
New players are going to have a much better time in russian tanks, because their bad/noob playstyle of W into the fight and just duke it out is going to be better suited for russian tanks (and they will constantly bounce shots off russian tanks).
This does bring up an issue, some players think that playing in deadspace, and abusing binos, 3rd person camera etc. (camping in CoD terms) is a boring or morally inferior playstyle, but its just playing to the strengths of those tanks.
There is another issue with map design, you don’t want to bring nato tanks into a city EVER, you are at a disadvantage 100% as you can’t hide your vulnerable lower section and will be easily one shot the second anything gets guns on you, while you however either have to 2 shot a russian tank taking the gun out first, or pray you hit lfp and fuel tanks don’t absorb everything or you die.
Devs reworking maps to remove these sniper posistions that nato tanks need to play around their advantages/disadvantages is not great though. We need map design that has both elements of urban and more open sections.
In fact, the base M1 Abrams is a more META vehicle than the T-90A is, the T-90A is among the worst high tier MBT’s in the entire game.
That doesn’t matter, the T-90A has:
Abysmal gun depression, gun elevation speed and atrocious turret traverse.
Horrendous reverse speed, poor acceleration, no neutral steering and low top speed, both on and off roads.
Slow reload rate, and will soon be further nerfed by the introduction of the autoloader.
Terrible survivability due to exposed ammunition everywhere, only 3 crew and everything being packed like a can of sardines.
Unreliable armour and easily exploited side armour that leads to constant one-hit-deaths.
The only good things about it are it’s thermals, but there’s plenty of vehicles at even lower BR’s with 2nd gen thermals already, and it’s 3BM-60 APFSDS, but then again the T-80B with 3BM-42 already penetrates anything it can meet so there very little actual impact with the upgraded penetration.
The T-80B is a better vehicle than the T-90A, and the T-80B is a lower BR ontop of that. Besides, you could also buy the 10.0 T-80UD and essentially have the T-90A experience at a more favourable BR.
Off topic, but why is this a NATO tank thing? Russian tanks have demonstrated that their lack of gun elevation is a glaring weakness, and their lower front plates are far more vulnerable and a far more attractive target than that of most NATO MBTs. I believe these shortcomings are more prevalent in russian tank design than NATO tank designs.
Their lfp are not more attractive targets because of the angle, no tanks lfp is stopping anything tho. Gun elevation is a meme, what they lack in urban enviroments where infrantry exists is a remote weapon system for their commander. Getting out of the tank to man your pintel mount is suicide (wish WT modeled this).
Well I mean the only things Abrams has over the T-90A then is mobility and reload and gun depression and elevation. other than that it has got unreliable armor that is easily exploited at any angle at almost any point and being a gargantuan tank compared to T-90. so I mean yeah it is “worse” but then the abrams is also “worse” depending on how you look at it. I wasn’t saying T-90 is better I was just saying that if you don’t know how to kill a abrams then that is just as much a “skill issue” as not being able to kill a T-90
What makes something meta is having really good armor without being a tortoise. The 2A7V/122B+ aren’t speed demons, and the T-80BVM was never made of paper.
No it can’t, you must be thinking of A1 and IP, everything after that (A1HC/A2/AIM) uses further upgraded armour and the turret cheeks will block most APFSDS in the game.
Their LFPs are more attractive targets because the massive carousel behind them. Did you forget that? It’s not about the plate itself, its about whats behind it.
M829A2 is the 3rd highest pen round, and even then at 3rd place it still is only 18m more than M338, and 14mm more than the type 10 round. Also it matters not if the round would make a difference or not but its been said that both the DM53 and the m829a3s anti era tips have defeated even the Relict ERA from the Ruskies. Which honestly wouldn’t be to bad of an addition since they have the smallest pen areas minus the leo2a7/strvs.
Not to mention the M1A1 AIM never had DU in the turret makes this whole argument null and void, its an Aussie Abrams therefore export IE no DU, and the fact that 5 prototypes exist with DU in the hull, and not to mention the SEPV2s improved torsion bars(huh wonder what that’s for), but I digress.
The fact that their is not different armor values period from the M1A1-M1A2SEPV2 in game is embarrassing and a lack of foresight.
this is the biggest problem with neckbeards in warthunder. Armor apparently never advances nor does rounds with new technology being discovered. almost like they can fit more mass in those spaces after 30 years but hey whatever
‘‘T-80BVM vs M1 Abrams (10.3) is issue of skill, not issue of tank’’
I too can play that game.
T-80BVM has good mobility, much improved gun handling, better survivability and better reload rate.
The T-80B at 10.3 is a better vehicle than the T-90A at 10.7 simply because of it’s massive mobility advantage as well.
I explain it in the same comment.
Source?
I am not sure what your point is.
Those M1’s were of the M1A1 variety, I’d guess M1A1 HA’s. How does that help the M1A2 SEP or M1A2 SEP v2 that we have in-game?
Source?
Like I’ve said a million times:
Firstly, there were armour improvements, namely in regards to the turret side protection versus shaped charge threats, additions of IED protection such as the belly plate, changes to crew seating, external improvements such as ARAT, various protective elements for the crew, survivability improvements in regards to the hatches. fire extinguishers, etc. etc.
Secondly, the above changes are all mentioned in primary source U.S. documents, yet the kinds of upgrades you’re looking for mysteriously aren’t mentioned untill the SEP v3. If you believe the armour underwent upgrades, feel free to prove it.
Thirdly, M1A1 - M1A2 already saw a massive upgrade from the turret being 400mm @ 60° to 600mm @ 60°.
Fourthly, there’s countless reasons why the base armour likely wasn’t changed significantly during this period, and I’ve already linked multiple sources that explain why, including: 1. Fall of the Soviet union led to reduced urgency to upgrade. The M1A2 wasn’t even expected to serve past 2010. 2. Budgetary concerns and limitations led to the cancellation of upgrade programs. 3. Weight restrictions led to numerous upgrades not being carried out at all, or untill significant weight reductions had been achieved. 4. The armour was sufficient against the ammunition the Soviet Union possessed in quanities at that time. Remember that 3BM-60 wasn’t common for decades to come.
And lastly, you people are obsessed with thinking in terms of video game stats, with an unhealthy focus around armour.
Real life isn’t about sheer armour protection, it doesn’t even play a primary role in the survivability onion. Target acquisition, battle management systems, fire control systems, tactical mobility and strategic mobility, these things are what makes the M1A2 stand out as being excellent.
If the M1A2 SEP v3 gets introduced with the same armour protection, then you’ll see me on your side. At least for that variant there’s concrete evidence that it features improved turret and hull protection.
And we can quantify the weight increases in-game almost perfectly.
The regular M1 Abrams weighs 55.7 tons. The M1A1 gets a larger 120mm gun and a slight turret upgrade from ~390mm to ~450mm. At 57.2 tons. A 1.5 ton increase for a fairly substantial amount - even unrealistic, really.
The M1A1 HC gets DU in the turret, increasing the 450mm effectiveness all the way up to 675mm at 61.2 tons. A mere 4 ton increase for over 200mm of KE protection. Do keep in mind that the Ariete WAR kit is 5 tons in-game, designed to defeat APFSDS, and is currently ~20mm effective.
Then the M1A2 receives various minor upgrades, a better thermal system, and an APU. Which puts it at 62 tons exactly, which is very believable. The APU is meant to provide power even if the engine isn’t running and producing electricity through the alternator, so this should be modeled in-game to not slow down the turret rotation even if the engine is off.
The M1A2 SEP only weighs 200 kilograms more at 62.2 tons, which can be attributed to anything minor. And the SEP V2 weighs 66.1 tons, 3.9 tons more because it gets the entire TUSK kit covering the whole sides of the turret and hull, along with a big CROWS system on the top of the turret?
Basically - a CHILD looking at the Abrams in-game could EASILY, LOGICALLY deduce that the armor has both been added, and that the increased weight has been modeled.
The the ability to swap them out for the Alternate Mk.19 or FGM-148 configuration for them would be nice, and make them slightly more relevant for the appropriate M1 variants since MG’s aren’t really within scope of WT since Infantry have yet to be implemented.
