That’s an export M1A1SA….
1 Like
Real life doesn’t quite work like that.
Real life isn’t: ‘‘This one tank has better attributes, so it’d automatically win every engagement’’.
Plenty of Panthers, Tiger’s and Jagdpanthers were knocked out by simple T-34’s or 75mm Shermans, in case of the Shermans they actually held kill ratios against Panthers in their favour.
The vast majority of tank battles’ outcomes are down to who sees who first. If a T-72B3 sees an Abrams first, my money is on the T-72B3 winning that engagement.
2 Likes
Then you are on some good grade a copium. Real life isn’t warthunder where your delusions or gaijin delusions dont apply. The M1A2 Sep V3 is virtually immune to everything Russia has. None of Russias ATGMs can penetrate the Abrams, none of their APFSDS can penetrate the Abrams.
Don’t tell them that let them keep thinking that its an actual U.S Army standard abrams.
1 Like
The T-72B3 shell won’t do shit because it doesn’t know where to hit, it doesn’t know the Abrams weakspots unlike the Abrams crew knows exactly where to hit, also you would lose your money and the T-72B3, and its crew would vaporize, simple as it is.
1 Like
This is what warthunder has done to peoples minds. Its warped their perception of reality where they actually think that the Abrams armor protection is anything near what gaijin has made it to be. The amount of times i chuckle when i have people tell me that " 3BM-42 or 3BM-60 can penetrate the LFP of a U.S Army abrams IRL at combat ranges has me dying in laughter. Even within 1,000 meters the 3BM-60 can’t even go through the lower front plate of an abrams.
1 Like
Its mostly delusional Russian mains who think this way, but unbiased people that play every tech tree already knows the truth, and i laugh too when people say that Warthunder is realistic game lmao.
I love how the Abrams is modeled ingame that means that its enemies doesn’t know anything about its armor, and everything is classified unlike its Russians counterparts.
1 Like
The forums (and reddit) is mostly just nation mains from one nation fighting nation mains from other nations.
It’s even funnier if they are bad at the game, so I can bully nation mains on both sides when I get bored.
2 Likes
Is the T-72B3’s shell sentient? Self aware? ‘‘The missile knows where it is’’ meme?
The 75mm Shermans on paper weren’t capable of knocking out Panthers with ease, in reality they did it anyways.
2 Likes
Wtf dude im speechless are you even a human? Seems like a monster
What is this superweapon talk 🤣
You are textbook example
Please tell me not every American is similar to you there should be normal ones as well
BECAUSE WE all know a loss percentage of 580% is a victory.
Do you actually think a T72-B3 can go up against a m1a2 Sep V3 in real life and win?
notice how necrons never directly addresses any points ever made to him.
If this is about in game this is a massive level of cope
2 Likes
In either case it’s cope.
Throughout armoured warfare history it’s been true that whichever vehicle spots the enemy first generally wins the engagement. This remains true regardless of the vehicles potentially being imbalanced in terms of capabilities.
It’s pure Cope to believe that somehow, and for unknown reasons the M1 Abrams is magically exempt from this rule that applies to every other vehicle in existence.
1 Like
It’s also cope that the US never developed better armor for the M1A2 than an export package from 40 years ago.
4 Likes
Thats a shit example ngl.
1 Like
Did u see me mentioning “Ingame”?
1 Like
That also if the T72B3 knows the Abrams weakspots which they don’t, also i don’t think the Abrams crew wouldn’t see a shit box hiding, the T72B3 crew wouldn’t notice the Abrams untill its too late.
1 Like
The M1A2 SEP v2 is a 2009 vehicle, by that time the composite armour it uses is ‘‘only’’ 19 years old, which doesn’t seem out of the ordinary considering how the periods of time other armour systems were used for.
The documents I’ve read point to no significant upgrades having been carried out, but this is limited to the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP, beyond that point I can’t make any educated claims.
I do wonder however why the M1A2 SEP still hasn’t received the upgraded turret side armour vs CE, myself and many others have bug reported that quite a while back.
The M1A2 SEP v3 does seem to have received notable armour upgrades, I wonder how Gaijin is going to interpret that once they implement it.
I guinely get confused every time you reply.
In what reality are gunner’s ever trained to specifically aim for weakspots? This simply isn’t a thing and you’re confusing gaming with real life crew training, which is baffling.
Ask any tanker across any country whether they’re taught to aim for weakspots, and the answer will always be a resounding ‘‘No’’.
Tanks are often knocked out without physically being destroyed, that means the crew either bails, a mission-kill is scored via the tracks, optics, or other external features being destroyed, or the shot simply comes from the side or rear.
Both vehicles are equipped with thermal sights, the likelyhood the M1A2 sees the T-72B3 first is indeed greater due to it’s CITV, but that’s not what we were discussing and that’d be moving the goalpost.
My point is that the vehicle which sees it’s opponent first, generally wins. This has been proven time and again throughout history, yet you’re acting as though the M1 is magically exempt from this.
There’s a reason why ‘‘Don’t be spotted’’ is a major part of the survivability onion.
2 Likes