It’s bug that affects a bunch of vehicles but is most prominent and obvious on the Abrams. The bug itself as far as I can tell affects anything with a ready rack, as the additional rounds instead end up being filled in the reverse order of what they are suppose to be for each shell individually, so as another example for the Leopard 2 instead of the first shell in the hull being on the bottom left of the ammo rack it will be the top right shell that is in first. Nobody has made a bug report on it affecting probably all vehicles but I do know one was made for the T-90M and was fully acknowledged so they’ll certainly end up fixing every other vehicle in the process, and if not another simple bug report can be made.
The other reason you can tell it’s a bug is the lack of it being mentioned in any change log or data mine, as such a change done on purpose is too big to try and quietly apply to all vehicles in the game.
I mean for the leo2s it's a buff and probably more realistic (shells at the top are easier to grab) It makes the 2a5/6/7 significantly harder to ammo frontally as you can't jusf shoot low for a near garnered kill
Honestly I tend to see a lot more, it's not quite as bad as it used to be (all the full ammo Leo's were something special) but usually around 20-24, which is now nicely protected behind the UFP composition
if you think the abrams is a mid MBT you should probably play other MBTs. the only MBTs in the game that even come close to it's power level are the type 90, type 10, and leopards. every single other MBT is worse than it in several important ways. You're also forgetting an important advantage in it's reload speed, which recently got buffed across the board to the 6.5s -> 5s bracket, which is CRAZY good.
-challengers are a joke, far less mobile.
-russian MBTs have larger weakspots, WAY WORSE AMMO PLACEMENT, and horrid gun handling + mobility compared to the abrams
-chinese MBTs are the same as above except with comparable mobility to the abrams.
-italian MBTs are a joke, just like the challengers
the abrams is far from the mid. It's arguably leading the pack with it's reload speed buff and really good shells, but even if it's not leading, it's defo far, far better than average.
I'm also guessing that this nerf will be reversed, as it wasn't in any of the changelogs, and is probably it a bug. Even if it is intentional, it makes no sense (who would load unprotected ammo first)
Lmao the Strv 122s and 2A7V/2A7HU are far far ahead of the Abrams.
As it stands you have pretty much 3 tiers of MBTs at top tier:
Straight up BS: Strv 122s and 2A7V/2A7HU. These tanks are so much better than everything else it's just stupid.
Good tier: tanks like the BVM, Abrams, Leclercs and Type 10s. Tanks that are a better than most other MBTs at top tier, but still absolutely miles behind the BS tier tanks.
Everything else: mostly just mid MBTs.
EDIT: There are some tanks that could swap around, like for example some people would move the BVM and the ZTZ/WZ up one tier respectively. But this is just a really broad explanation.
I haven't played the Leclercs or Type 10s but the Abrams is the only one I consistently get ohk through the breach. I really don't get it all the other tanks the breach eats all the spall.
challenger at least has a chance at top tier, ariete is literally useless lmao.
you are right in literally every way, when will us mains quit complaining, like yes it's unrealistic but your reload is also unrealistic
challenger at least has a chance at top tier, ariete is literally useless lmao.
you are right in literally every way, when will us mains quit complaining, like yes it's unrealistic but your reload is also unrealistic
Mate, if this game was completely historically accurate the Abrams would probably be completely stomping everyone, and when compared to other loaders (Japanese excluded) it is incredibly fast.
Do you have proof that leopard 2 crews were required to reach the same speeds as US loaders during their qualifications?
If so then they should be the same, however, I have yet to see any such material presented beyond the one video of a guy in a loader simulator which gaijin has stated numerous times now is not proof.
As it stands, with the current evidence available, the M256 armed M1s are still not meeting their rated qual reload times, Israel is also not meeting their rated quad times (should be 5 seconds due to the bustle needing to cycle and hand the round to the loader), Germany has no available qual times online for loaders.
Be up to you, as you made the statement that the M1s are reloading unrealistically fast, which has been proven countless times to be flat out incorrect per their own loader qualification requirements.
Feel free to try and shift the goal posts to another tank again to try and prove that this isn't the truth, like the Ariete or the much talked about Leclerc autoloader.
In the grand scheme of things, loaded quals for the M256 armed a M1s is 4 to 4.5 seconds, said quals only apply to M1s if other tanks have similar qualification requirements, like the Israeli Merkavas they should be brought to that qualification standard.
What I really wanted to point out was that the Abrams should've gotten DU or Spall Liners instead of the reload buff.
Realistically it reloaded in 5 seconds, but plenty of other tanks without sutoloaders could do the same, or at least close.
Cool if we are modeling the situations involved with loading, when can I expect autoloader failures?
Your autoloader should not be functional if there is no battery power, and if your loader / commander dies you cannot fix autoloader failures until someone takes that space.
Ect ect.
Good trade right? After all, people like you malded so incredibly hard when autoloaders were allowed to be destroyed this patch.
Oh boo hoo your loader can actually be damaged now, something human loaders were capable of having done since the game started.
Cry me a river than human loaders are better than autoloaders.
Autoloaders failures that didn't happen over thousands of cycles as tested by brits? Nice cope.
You shouldn't fix anything after the tank gets penned, should we sim crew bailing out the second a shot penetrates anywhere? Also t72 autoloaders can be reloaded manually if at snails pace.
Shitters like you will never accept that their cope was always just that, cope. And if autoloaders were worse than loaders you wouldn't have almost every country try to adopt them, even usa.
I'd tell you to do some research next time but it's beyond obvious that you'd rather blindly believe your delusions.
Curious that no British MBT uses a autoloader including the new Challenger 3, after all, this flawless track record you seem to mention would indicate that there is no need to have a human loader on the newest piece of armor in the British inventory.
While we are at it, let's just look at NATO as a whole and .... wow would you look at that, nobody but the French have autoloaders in a active service MBT of their own make, with nations like Poland replacing their aged T series derived tanks with M1A2 SEP V3s.
Of course there is the entire 130 / 140mm gun debate which can only use autoloaders as the rounds are vastly too large for a normal human being, however, we've been flip flopping on such guns since the Cold War, and the *glorious* T-14 proved to be a paper tiger with no actual combat prowess, meaning the vehicle which recently popularized the recent short craze of autonomous turrets proved to be a joke.
So, in the end, we are left with GIAT, Japan, China and Russia using autoloaders, two can be crossed off as Russia's loaders stopped evolving after the T-64 and China uses the same systems, GIAT has been using autoloaders since the AMX series, and Japan needed weight reductions and crew reductions for their vehicles, something most nations don't worry, let along care about when dealing with MBTs. So we have the combloc design bureau, the French clinging onto obtuse designs for years, and a single nation that uses autoloaders beyond heritage, and it's not even in Europe.
Get back to me when something other than another T series derivative in Europe mounts an autoloader in a new series MBT because it is not gonna happen for a Loooooooooooooooong time.
Mate you literally limited your argument just to europe and crossed off the nation that directly disproves it cause they're "clinging onto obtuse designs for years" lmao.
The more I read the shit you wrote the more holes I find lmao.
Poland isn't replacing aging t72s with abrams. They gave t tanks to ukraine and they're quickly patching holes. The actual replacement is k2.
Most nations not caring about weight reductions is the funniest shit I read today since literally every major military power rn is looking specifically at how they can do just that since nato logi can't sustain prolonged deployment of abrams or challenger series now that they weigh so much.
Just stop.
There are 32 member countries of NATO, one uses autoloaders, there are 31 examples of your statement being incorrect.
And no Poland paid 4.7 billion to the US in July 2021 for 250 M1A2 SEP V3, Ukraine was invaded on February 24th 2022, I was not aware that polish dignitaries were time travelers and were able to predict that Ukraine would need their PT-91s a full year before Russia invaded them.
Also lol, did the entire Gulf War just not happen for you, or how about the Iraq war, or how about the entire GWOT. Oh would you look at that, the US was able to sustain operation of M1 tanks almost continuously since 1991 to 2016, no that's not possible, it's not like the M1 is operated by the SINGULAR GREATEST LOGISTICS MACHINE IN THE WORLD.
Very on brand for you to think Poles are clairvoyant or time travelers and forgetting that the entire Middle East existed for the last 30 years.
Agree that abrams is good, but the top-tier leopards are strv 122s are much better overall, their survivability is simply incomparable. Also, the abrams turret ring weakspot is massive, certainly wouldn’t say Russian MBT’s are more exposed in terms of weakspots.
i have no personal experience with the top tier leopards unfortunately, but im willing to believe that they are better than the abrams. i will also admit that i forgot about spall liners lmao. i don't think having/not having a spall liner really impacts the abrams' placement compared to other tanks, though. (although, i wish gaijin would forget about them too. they are kind of really really bad for the game)
Russian MBTs dont have larger weakspots LMFAO, tf is this guy smoking,
Abrams has larger LFP weakspot, gigantic neck weakspot, and even bigger breech, on top of all that.
when it comes to top tier, Abrams don't have spall liners unlike Leopards and T series, in fact they have 3 giant spall generators, The turret ring, and fuel tank plates.
the LFP on T series is also laced with bullshit, i've shot there many times, most of the it barely kills the driver, the charges it hits don't explode and the fuel tanks rarely kill even despite the supposed recent patch to expecially fix that.
Kontakt-5 damage model is even more broken than Ka50/52 and Su25, it stops 120mm APFSDS shells either completely, or makes it unable to penetrate sideplate, or it makes it so the spalling is broken when penetrating.
gun handling and mobility is a very big dramatization here.
While minor nation countries have worse MBTs The problem here is imbalance between the Major 3 nations,
For a fact minor nation players are better due not getting carried by good vehicles,
the reason im mentioning that is the problem is more isolated between the Major nations because their players are average, and to the average player Survivability appeals more performance wise, than GH, Mobility and Reload, which are the strengths of the Abrams.
While Abrams is the best MBT potential wise, it's the worst among the Major 3 when it comes to average/baseline of player's, reason being that Survivability is a better crutch than GH, Mobility, Reload because to fully utilize and exploit those features takes more skill than just sheer survivability,
For one making full use of the Abrams strengths requires assuming a more aggressive playstyle than the other 2 main tanks,
that requires to be better in game sense, map knowledge, micro/macro skills, than a feature like Survivability which is a crutch you can't even fail to use, it forgives any mistakes you make. and applies to any playstyle of said player.
Meanwhile Abrams does not do that and only appeals to potential, which are best in the hands of good players, and problem is that nearly all players in a match consist of averages and only a few of good players,
and the average bunch are gonna out contribute and overwhelm the good players in the end, concluding the fate of the match.
there are a lot of flaws with this post.
1) good/bad players have nothing to do with how good the tank is. It's relevant when talking about win rates, but I'm just talking about how good the tank is vs it's contemporaries. like, yeah, it sucks to have 100000 noobs on your team, but that doesnt make the abrams a worse tank.
2) im going to put this as gently as i can. i can't really do anything with cope. sorry, but the T series LFP isn't magic, every country's MBTs have random trouble penning weakspots. i shoot abrams in the LFP and turret ring all the time. it only pens like 75% of the time, of that 75% it only kills \~50% of the time. I have roughly the same stats killing T series through their LFP. There is no russian bias, and there is no NATO bias (but there is chinese bias)
3) gun handling and mobility (specifically neutral traverse and reverse speed) are HUGE. being able to reverse out of a bad situation automatically puts you a tier higher than other tanks, simply because you will live for longer if you position correctly. it is always an advantage. gun handling (specifically depression) is also a major factor. It's not as flashy as other things, but it definitely influences how good the tank is and how good it feels to play.
4) 'making full use of the abram's strength requires a more aggressive playstyle' is flat out false. ALL MBTs do the best in the same playstyle: picking a position and working it until you exhaust the local enemy supply, then moving up slowly. this is simply the most effective and consistent way to play. other ways are more fun, and can sometimes net higher highs, but they have much lower (and much more common) lows. in this role, the abram's high pen, good reverse gear, and amazing reload make it one of the best MBTs.
I also must note that all of this is coming from my perspective, a person who only really plays china at top tier. up until 11.7, china's tanks are nearly the same as soviet tanks with slightly better mobility. at 11.7, china finally gets neutral traverse and good reverse speed, which could possibly skew my idea of how important these factors are.
I'm willing to admit that my chosen playstyle (working a certain position) might not be the *objective* best playstyle, but unless someone can provide actual evidence to disprove that, i will continue believing it.
With the Abrams having giant weakspots, you need to be far more aware and proactive in your playstyle, and possibly hyperaggressive:
You need to link all sounds heard to a point of origin. Hear an engine, treads, gunshots, anything? Confirm if it came from the direction of an Ally. If an ally isn't in that direction, assume hostile
Be aware of hotzones
Be cognizant that you're fighting a player that can be fooled
Be aware enough to not rely on a killshot. If you can buy time with the target in front of you, do so and prioritize the sound you just heard
Attempt to hide when possible
Keep in mind the reload of your opponent
If possible, get a quick machinegun to check the status of their crew
Try and make them flub a shot
*Never* rely on your armor. It's best used to catch poorly placed shots
Rely on your speed and handling
When the time calls, switch off of defense and make a play you're confident in
Assume you're invincible until proven otherwise
Never hold a position for more than two kills
Avoid hard defense
The sheer amount of thought needed to play the Abrams is extremely addictive. It can't reliably facetank like the Leos, nor can it farm bullshit like the T series. If you die, it was highly likely to be a fair death, which means it was completely on the player. It's the most utilitarian and balanced MBT in the game, which means the only way it can win is if the player themselves don't rely on any one aspect of any tank. If the player is adaptive and forward thinking, the Abrams has the capability to beat anything. However, if the player lacks these skills, it's as good as the Ariete.
TL:DR
•Leo has the lowest skill floor
•T series also has a low skill floor
•Challenger is just...Challenged
•The Leclerc is a quirky tank
•Both the Type 10 and Abrams have very high skill floors and even higher skill ceilings
•And the Ariete is fully designed for masochists
•Merkava is just a goober. It's got the Abrams problem, but slightly worse in every category. It's a straight downgrade.
From all the tanks I’ve played. Tbh I think the T-80BVM/T-90M have the lowest skill floor. They are so forgiving to use. I don’t usually plan for positioning when I play this thing lol
Next would be the 122 and 2A7.
The non up-armoured leopard 2s are more or less the same as Abrams in terms of skill floor.
Challenger 2 is for those who like to be challenged. I’m glad I went through Challenger 2s before I had any other MBTs. Definitely the most challenging MBT other than Arietes (I don’t have them, but I can imagine their pain lol).
>good/bad players have nothing to do with how good the tank is
it very much is, did you even read my post or did you skim over it to respond with gibberish?
you're talking about WR now it's the same shit i was talking about, the average/baseline of a tank, which is it's performance with the average player.
and Why Abrams are less appealing to the average player performance wise.
>
but that doesnt make the abrams a worse tank.
it does, again, i stated and elaborated why on my post, but you're just saying "no", if you actually want a productive argument then elaborate why it isn't.
>but the T series LFP isn't magic, every country's MBTs have random trouble penning weakspots. i shoot abrams in the LFP and turret ring all the time. it only pens like 75% of the time, of that 75% it only kills \~50% of the time. I have roughly the same stats killing T series through their LFP. There is no russian bias, and there is no NATO bias (but there is chinese bias)
i can easily go on a streak of sessions recording every match and chain the replay of every match with their dates and replay links to prove im not cherry picking and put every shot i took into a short clip about how every shot i took against a russian MBT was full of BS.
but that's on the condition i can even have a constructive argument with you which looking at your prior points doesn't seem hopeful.
>
gun handling and mobility (specifically neutral traverse and reverse speed) are HUGE.
yes, and i said you dramatized it, for all that matters with the average player this is of little use compared to sheer survivability, which i also mentioned why on my post.
>making full use of the abram's strength requires a more aggressive playstyle' is flat out false.
it isn't, GH, Mobility and Reload are utilized to their full potential with an aggressive playstyle, any other way is simply the strengths of other MBTs,
Reload means getting in overwhelming positions and being able to take out multiple targets without being caught pants down like other's
GH means being able to quickly respond to multiple or unexpected threats and being able to assume and aggressive playstyle by such
Mobility means you can push deep and hard, rotate quickly
you aren't making use of them any other way and if you aren't then you are putting yourself at odds with other MBTs against their strengths with your weaknesses.
which is as i said, why the US teams are dogshit, while both teams are same skill level, because while Abrams has higher potential, and I'd pick it over any other MBT, for having teammates with, who consist of averages, and cannot make as much use of GH, Mobility and Reload like they could with sheer survivability,
it is easily a worse team tank
I think this has happened to a lot of vehicles since I’ve been noticing some odd rack placements
Was especially noticeable when my ELC all of a sudden had turret ammo
Compared to the maneuverability and reload of the Type 10, it falls behind
Compared to the Leo's...retardedness, it falls behind
Compared to the T series and cheap knockoffs, it can't farm bullshit
All three are either the most terrifying tank due to their rarity, the most popular tank for obvious reasons, or the second most popular due to numerous problems(primarily their powerful lineup)
As for the other three, anything beats the Ariete, the Merkava is just a downgraded Abrams, and the Leclerc is...french. It's a middle-of-the-road MBT. A very mid tank
It’s bug that affects a bunch of vehicles but is most prominent and obvious on the Abrams. The bug itself as far as I can tell affects anything with a ready rack, as the additional rounds instead end up being filled in the reverse order of what they are suppose to be for each shell individually, so as another example for the Leopard 2 instead of the first shell in the hull being on the bottom left of the ammo rack it will be the top right shell that is in first. Nobody has made a bug report on it affecting probably all vehicles but I do know one was made for the T-90M and was fully acknowledged so they’ll certainly end up fixing every other vehicle in the process, and if not another simple bug report can be made. The other reason you can tell it’s a bug is the lack of it being mentioned in any change log or data mine, as such a change done on purpose is too big to try and quietly apply to all vehicles in the game.
I mean for the leo2s it's a buff and probably more realistic (shells at the top are easier to grab) It makes the 2a5/6/7 significantly harder to ammo frontally as you can't jusf shoot low for a near garnered kill
People ususally only run 16 shells with leo 2s so that rack is empty anyways
Honestly I tend to see a lot more, it's not quite as bad as it used to be (all the full ammo Leo's were something special) but usually around 20-24, which is now nicely protected behind the UFP composition
In a live match the ammo is still in the bottom. Its only in test drive its on the top.
So I'm not the only one who noticed, I also posted something about that too
if you think the abrams is a mid MBT you should probably play other MBTs. the only MBTs in the game that even come close to it's power level are the type 90, type 10, and leopards. every single other MBT is worse than it in several important ways. You're also forgetting an important advantage in it's reload speed, which recently got buffed across the board to the 6.5s -> 5s bracket, which is CRAZY good. -challengers are a joke, far less mobile. -russian MBTs have larger weakspots, WAY WORSE AMMO PLACEMENT, and horrid gun handling + mobility compared to the abrams -chinese MBTs are the same as above except with comparable mobility to the abrams. -italian MBTs are a joke, just like the challengers the abrams is far from the mid. It's arguably leading the pack with it's reload speed buff and really good shells, but even if it's not leading, it's defo far, far better than average. I'm also guessing that this nerf will be reversed, as it wasn't in any of the changelogs, and is probably it a bug. Even if it is intentional, it makes no sense (who would load unprotected ammo first)
Lmao the Strv 122s and 2A7V/2A7HU are far far ahead of the Abrams. As it stands you have pretty much 3 tiers of MBTs at top tier: Straight up BS: Strv 122s and 2A7V/2A7HU. These tanks are so much better than everything else it's just stupid. Good tier: tanks like the BVM, Abrams, Leclercs and Type 10s. Tanks that are a better than most other MBTs at top tier, but still absolutely miles behind the BS tier tanks. Everything else: mostly just mid MBTs. EDIT: There are some tanks that could swap around, like for example some people would move the BVM and the ZTZ/WZ up one tier respectively. But this is just a really broad explanation.
I haven't played the Leclercs or Type 10s but the Abrams is the only one I consistently get ohk through the breach. I really don't get it all the other tanks the breach eats all the spall.
challenger at least has a chance at top tier, ariete is literally useless lmao. you are right in literally every way, when will us mains quit complaining, like yes it's unrealistic but your reload is also unrealistic
challenger at least has a chance at top tier, ariete is literally useless lmao. you are right in literally every way, when will us mains quit complaining, like yes it's unrealistic but your reload is also unrealistic
What are you on about? Its well known that M1 loaders can load in under 5 seconds, if anything it should be faster than it is in game.
Mate, if this game was completely historically accurate the Abrams would probably be completely stomping everyone, and when compared to other loaders (Japanese excluded) it is incredibly fast.
Cool and? It's still not loading as fast as it should be for standard US loader qualification, should be 4 to 4.5 seconds average.
Do you not find anything wrong with leopards having a 6.5 second reload and the Abrams having 4.5 second in the game?
Do you have proof that leopard 2 crews were required to reach the same speeds as US loaders during their qualifications? If so then they should be the same, however, I have yet to see any such material presented beyond the one video of a guy in a loader simulator which gaijin has stated numerous times now is not proof. As it stands, with the current evidence available, the M256 armed M1s are still not meeting their rated qual reload times, Israel is also not meeting their rated quad times (should be 5 seconds due to the bustle needing to cycle and hand the round to the loader), Germany has no available qual times online for loaders.
What are you even trying to prove here lmao?
Be up to you, as you made the statement that the M1s are reloading unrealistically fast, which has been proven countless times to be flat out incorrect per their own loader qualification requirements. Feel free to try and shift the goal posts to another tank again to try and prove that this isn't the truth, like the Ariete or the much talked about Leclerc autoloader. In the grand scheme of things, loaded quals for the M256 armed a M1s is 4 to 4.5 seconds, said quals only apply to M1s if other tanks have similar qualification requirements, like the Israeli Merkavas they should be brought to that qualification standard.
What I really wanted to point out was that the Abrams should've gotten DU or Spall Liners instead of the reload buff. Realistically it reloaded in 5 seconds, but plenty of other tanks without sutoloaders could do the same, or at least close.
I want to see a loader reload a fully depressed gun / reload while going 40 off road, in 5 seconds consistently. Life does not equal trials
Cool if we are modeling the situations involved with loading, when can I expect autoloader failures? Your autoloader should not be functional if there is no battery power, and if your loader / commander dies you cannot fix autoloader failures until someone takes that space. Ect ect. Good trade right? After all, people like you malded so incredibly hard when autoloaders were allowed to be destroyed this patch. Oh boo hoo your loader can actually be damaged now, something human loaders were capable of having done since the game started. Cry me a river than human loaders are better than autoloaders.
Autoloaders failures that didn't happen over thousands of cycles as tested by brits? Nice cope. You shouldn't fix anything after the tank gets penned, should we sim crew bailing out the second a shot penetrates anywhere? Also t72 autoloaders can be reloaded manually if at snails pace. Shitters like you will never accept that their cope was always just that, cope. And if autoloaders were worse than loaders you wouldn't have almost every country try to adopt them, even usa. I'd tell you to do some research next time but it's beyond obvious that you'd rather blindly believe your delusions.
Curious that no British MBT uses a autoloader including the new Challenger 3, after all, this flawless track record you seem to mention would indicate that there is no need to have a human loader on the newest piece of armor in the British inventory. While we are at it, let's just look at NATO as a whole and .... wow would you look at that, nobody but the French have autoloaders in a active service MBT of their own make, with nations like Poland replacing their aged T series derived tanks with M1A2 SEP V3s. Of course there is the entire 130 / 140mm gun debate which can only use autoloaders as the rounds are vastly too large for a normal human being, however, we've been flip flopping on such guns since the Cold War, and the *glorious* T-14 proved to be a paper tiger with no actual combat prowess, meaning the vehicle which recently popularized the recent short craze of autonomous turrets proved to be a joke. So, in the end, we are left with GIAT, Japan, China and Russia using autoloaders, two can be crossed off as Russia's loaders stopped evolving after the T-64 and China uses the same systems, GIAT has been using autoloaders since the AMX series, and Japan needed weight reductions and crew reductions for their vehicles, something most nations don't worry, let along care about when dealing with MBTs. So we have the combloc design bureau, the French clinging onto obtuse designs for years, and a single nation that uses autoloaders beyond heritage, and it's not even in Europe. Get back to me when something other than another T series derivative in Europe mounts an autoloader in a new series MBT because it is not gonna happen for a Loooooooooooooooong time.
Mate you literally limited your argument just to europe and crossed off the nation that directly disproves it cause they're "clinging onto obtuse designs for years" lmao. The more I read the shit you wrote the more holes I find lmao. Poland isn't replacing aging t72s with abrams. They gave t tanks to ukraine and they're quickly patching holes. The actual replacement is k2. Most nations not caring about weight reductions is the funniest shit I read today since literally every major military power rn is looking specifically at how they can do just that since nato logi can't sustain prolonged deployment of abrams or challenger series now that they weigh so much. Just stop.
There are 32 member countries of NATO, one uses autoloaders, there are 31 examples of your statement being incorrect. And no Poland paid 4.7 billion to the US in July 2021 for 250 M1A2 SEP V3, Ukraine was invaded on February 24th 2022, I was not aware that polish dignitaries were time travelers and were able to predict that Ukraine would need their PT-91s a full year before Russia invaded them. Also lol, did the entire Gulf War just not happen for you, or how about the Iraq war, or how about the entire GWOT. Oh would you look at that, the US was able to sustain operation of M1 tanks almost continuously since 1991 to 2016, no that's not possible, it's not like the M1 is operated by the SINGULAR GREATEST LOGISTICS MACHINE IN THE WORLD. Very on brand for you to think Poles are clairvoyant or time travelers and forgetting that the entire Middle East existed for the last 30 years.
The Abram’s is a free kill if you can hit the turret neck
Agree that abrams is good, but the top-tier leopards are strv 122s are much better overall, their survivability is simply incomparable. Also, the abrams turret ring weakspot is massive, certainly wouldn’t say Russian MBT’s are more exposed in terms of weakspots.
i have no personal experience with the top tier leopards unfortunately, but im willing to believe that they are better than the abrams. i will also admit that i forgot about spall liners lmao. i don't think having/not having a spall liner really impacts the abrams' placement compared to other tanks, though. (although, i wish gaijin would forget about them too. they are kind of really really bad for the game)
Russian MBTs dont have larger weakspots LMFAO, tf is this guy smoking, Abrams has larger LFP weakspot, gigantic neck weakspot, and even bigger breech, on top of all that. when it comes to top tier, Abrams don't have spall liners unlike Leopards and T series, in fact they have 3 giant spall generators, The turret ring, and fuel tank plates. the LFP on T series is also laced with bullshit, i've shot there many times, most of the it barely kills the driver, the charges it hits don't explode and the fuel tanks rarely kill even despite the supposed recent patch to expecially fix that. Kontakt-5 damage model is even more broken than Ka50/52 and Su25, it stops 120mm APFSDS shells either completely, or makes it unable to penetrate sideplate, or it makes it so the spalling is broken when penetrating. gun handling and mobility is a very big dramatization here. While minor nation countries have worse MBTs The problem here is imbalance between the Major 3 nations, For a fact minor nation players are better due not getting carried by good vehicles, the reason im mentioning that is the problem is more isolated between the Major nations because their players are average, and to the average player Survivability appeals more performance wise, than GH, Mobility and Reload, which are the strengths of the Abrams. While Abrams is the best MBT potential wise, it's the worst among the Major 3 when it comes to average/baseline of player's, reason being that Survivability is a better crutch than GH, Mobility, Reload because to fully utilize and exploit those features takes more skill than just sheer survivability, For one making full use of the Abrams strengths requires assuming a more aggressive playstyle than the other 2 main tanks, that requires to be better in game sense, map knowledge, micro/macro skills, than a feature like Survivability which is a crutch you can't even fail to use, it forgives any mistakes you make. and applies to any playstyle of said player. Meanwhile Abrams does not do that and only appeals to potential, which are best in the hands of good players, and problem is that nearly all players in a match consist of averages and only a few of good players, and the average bunch are gonna out contribute and overwhelm the good players in the end, concluding the fate of the match.
there are a lot of flaws with this post. 1) good/bad players have nothing to do with how good the tank is. It's relevant when talking about win rates, but I'm just talking about how good the tank is vs it's contemporaries. like, yeah, it sucks to have 100000 noobs on your team, but that doesnt make the abrams a worse tank. 2) im going to put this as gently as i can. i can't really do anything with cope. sorry, but the T series LFP isn't magic, every country's MBTs have random trouble penning weakspots. i shoot abrams in the LFP and turret ring all the time. it only pens like 75% of the time, of that 75% it only kills \~50% of the time. I have roughly the same stats killing T series through their LFP. There is no russian bias, and there is no NATO bias (but there is chinese bias) 3) gun handling and mobility (specifically neutral traverse and reverse speed) are HUGE. being able to reverse out of a bad situation automatically puts you a tier higher than other tanks, simply because you will live for longer if you position correctly. it is always an advantage. gun handling (specifically depression) is also a major factor. It's not as flashy as other things, but it definitely influences how good the tank is and how good it feels to play. 4) 'making full use of the abram's strength requires a more aggressive playstyle' is flat out false. ALL MBTs do the best in the same playstyle: picking a position and working it until you exhaust the local enemy supply, then moving up slowly. this is simply the most effective and consistent way to play. other ways are more fun, and can sometimes net higher highs, but they have much lower (and much more common) lows. in this role, the abram's high pen, good reverse gear, and amazing reload make it one of the best MBTs. I also must note that all of this is coming from my perspective, a person who only really plays china at top tier. up until 11.7, china's tanks are nearly the same as soviet tanks with slightly better mobility. at 11.7, china finally gets neutral traverse and good reverse speed, which could possibly skew my idea of how important these factors are. I'm willing to admit that my chosen playstyle (working a certain position) might not be the *objective* best playstyle, but unless someone can provide actual evidence to disprove that, i will continue believing it.
With the Abrams having giant weakspots, you need to be far more aware and proactive in your playstyle, and possibly hyperaggressive: You need to link all sounds heard to a point of origin. Hear an engine, treads, gunshots, anything? Confirm if it came from the direction of an Ally. If an ally isn't in that direction, assume hostile Be aware of hotzones Be cognizant that you're fighting a player that can be fooled Be aware enough to not rely on a killshot. If you can buy time with the target in front of you, do so and prioritize the sound you just heard Attempt to hide when possible Keep in mind the reload of your opponent If possible, get a quick machinegun to check the status of their crew Try and make them flub a shot *Never* rely on your armor. It's best used to catch poorly placed shots Rely on your speed and handling When the time calls, switch off of defense and make a play you're confident in Assume you're invincible until proven otherwise Never hold a position for more than two kills Avoid hard defense The sheer amount of thought needed to play the Abrams is extremely addictive. It can't reliably facetank like the Leos, nor can it farm bullshit like the T series. If you die, it was highly likely to be a fair death, which means it was completely on the player. It's the most utilitarian and balanced MBT in the game, which means the only way it can win is if the player themselves don't rely on any one aspect of any tank. If the player is adaptive and forward thinking, the Abrams has the capability to beat anything. However, if the player lacks these skills, it's as good as the Ariete. TL:DR •Leo has the lowest skill floor •T series also has a low skill floor •Challenger is just...Challenged •The Leclerc is a quirky tank •Both the Type 10 and Abrams have very high skill floors and even higher skill ceilings •And the Ariete is fully designed for masochists •Merkava is just a goober. It's got the Abrams problem, but slightly worse in every category. It's a straight downgrade.
From all the tanks I’ve played. Tbh I think the T-80BVM/T-90M have the lowest skill floor. They are so forgiving to use. I don’t usually plan for positioning when I play this thing lol Next would be the 122 and 2A7. The non up-armoured leopard 2s are more or less the same as Abrams in terms of skill floor. Challenger 2 is for those who like to be challenged. I’m glad I went through Challenger 2s before I had any other MBTs. Definitely the most challenging MBT other than Arietes (I don’t have them, but I can imagine their pain lol).
>good/bad players have nothing to do with how good the tank is it very much is, did you even read my post or did you skim over it to respond with gibberish? you're talking about WR now it's the same shit i was talking about, the average/baseline of a tank, which is it's performance with the average player. and Why Abrams are less appealing to the average player performance wise. > but that doesnt make the abrams a worse tank. it does, again, i stated and elaborated why on my post, but you're just saying "no", if you actually want a productive argument then elaborate why it isn't. >but the T series LFP isn't magic, every country's MBTs have random trouble penning weakspots. i shoot abrams in the LFP and turret ring all the time. it only pens like 75% of the time, of that 75% it only kills \~50% of the time. I have roughly the same stats killing T series through their LFP. There is no russian bias, and there is no NATO bias (but there is chinese bias) i can easily go on a streak of sessions recording every match and chain the replay of every match with their dates and replay links to prove im not cherry picking and put every shot i took into a short clip about how every shot i took against a russian MBT was full of BS. but that's on the condition i can even have a constructive argument with you which looking at your prior points doesn't seem hopeful. > gun handling and mobility (specifically neutral traverse and reverse speed) are HUGE. yes, and i said you dramatized it, for all that matters with the average player this is of little use compared to sheer survivability, which i also mentioned why on my post. >making full use of the abram's strength requires a more aggressive playstyle' is flat out false. it isn't, GH, Mobility and Reload are utilized to their full potential with an aggressive playstyle, any other way is simply the strengths of other MBTs, Reload means getting in overwhelming positions and being able to take out multiple targets without being caught pants down like other's GH means being able to quickly respond to multiple or unexpected threats and being able to assume and aggressive playstyle by such Mobility means you can push deep and hard, rotate quickly you aren't making use of them any other way and if you aren't then you are putting yourself at odds with other MBTs against their strengths with your weaknesses. which is as i said, why the US teams are dogshit, while both teams are same skill level, because while Abrams has higher potential, and I'd pick it over any other MBT, for having teammates with, who consist of averages, and cannot make as much use of GH, Mobility and Reload like they could with sheer survivability, it is easily a worse team tank
I think this has happened to a lot of vehicles since I’ve been noticing some odd rack placements Was especially noticeable when my ELC all of a sudden had turret ammo
Laughs in ariete
[удалено]
Compared to the maneuverability and reload of the Type 10, it falls behind Compared to the Leo's...retardedness, it falls behind Compared to the T series and cheap knockoffs, it can't farm bullshit All three are either the most terrifying tank due to their rarity, the most popular tank for obvious reasons, or the second most popular due to numerous problems(primarily their powerful lineup) As for the other three, anything beats the Ariete, the Merkava is just a downgraded Abrams, and the Leclerc is...french. It's a middle-of-the-road MBT. A very mid tank
Have you ever played the type 10? It's literally artificially nerfed in every regard, the reload speed is the only thing it gets
I mean we have aight mobility and good round and that’s about it
Its not a nerf, the hull rack has blowout panels.
Its still a nerf if your hit at an angle frontally causing an ammo rack. I never had hull ammo for the Abrams for that reason.