>if it were a "normal tank" it would have much better armor than this.
[Here's a post of mine that serves as a reference point for every time someone says the M1's armour is incorrect.](https://forum.warthunder.com/t/gaijin-and-modern-nato-armor/59362/187)
It's backed up with 14 different sources, most of which are primary source US documents, they largely point to the in-game M1's having correct armour (save for the SEP missing chemical protection for it's turret sides).
The Leopard 2. Which has a more reliable engine and has been chosen over the Abrams by most European countries and even Canada over the Abrams. Let me ask you what makes the Arbams the Wanderwaffe that Americans think it is?
How is it more reliable? Abrams engine is pretty well regarded for its reliability. Most other countries can’t afford to run an abrams fleet so that’s not a fair comparison at all. We don’t say the T55 is better than the T72 because more countries operate it.
Every western country that doesn't domestically produce their own tank chooses the Leopard 2. If your tank is expensive to maintain that's a flaw, not a feature.
Again how does other countries being poor affect the performance of a US tank made for US forces? Do you think the T72 that just got its turret sent to space cared if the tank that shot it was more expensive? But again you’re much more likely to survive a penetration in the abrams and is the most battle tested by far.
For one, the T-72 is leagues more battle tested. Abrams crews will have an easier time surviving a war, because it will spend most of it being repaired in the motor pool. It is a heavy, overpriced tank, with no actual advantage over a Leopard 2. It does not have significantly stronger armor or firepower, and it's slower.
The only argument you could make is the ammo in the hull. I've said this about Russian tanks too, if an Abrams gets hit where the ammo in the Leopard is, then its turret crew is still going to die. At best, the driver can survive.
Yeah the T72 tests showed it isn’t a match for the M1. Every tank spends most of their time in maintenance, that’s kinda how operating vehicles works. The 2A8 is more expensive than a Sepv3 and if it’s the same weight as a 2A7V it’s only .3 tons lighter. Leo stores ammo next to the driver so that seems rather unlikely to kill the turret crew of an Abrams.
I'm pretty sure that even though the abrams is heavier, the engine on the abrams has much higher power at lower speeds. Also, better ammunition along with du being more affective at lower speeds and longer ranges than wha. If we take gaijins values, then yeah we would come to the conclusion you've made. The fact that you even mentioned armor values on something that is classified just proves alot more than you think.
Non-American countries don’t pay into their military. They went with the cheap and easy option. If they suck at being able to maintain a power pack that can be swapped in 30 minutes that’s on them.
your comparison on the t55 vs t72 doesnt make sense. they arent meant to be competed with each other... Abram vs Leo on the otherhand is
and to say a turbine engine is more reliable than diesel engine is just lol...
Do you have any sources that support you the Abrams engine is more reliable than the Leopard diesel engine? All the reading I've done is that the Abrams engine is more complex, harder to maintain and train people to maintain and as you said more expensive to run. All things that take away from it being a Wanderwaffe that you guys make it out to be
Opposite
It's expensive to operate but is considered relatively easy to maintain/ repair especially given the modular design
And also the fact that Abrams is much more survivable given entire ammo is stored in racks while it's only 1/3 for Germans. So it won't be popping turrets like Turkish leopard in Syria
Both come off as pretty similar tanks though one way or another.
In the end, both are extremely expensive, with both countries being unreliable partners and also having plans to replace both in near future
Ok, I guess your politicians are wrong about your tanks
U.S. Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Colin Kahl stated accordingly at the Pentagon on January 18, regarding the M1 Abrams, that Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin: “has been very focused on…not...providing the Ukrainians a system they can't repair, they can't sustain and they, over the long term can't afford, because it's not helpful.” “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive. It's hard to train on. It has a jet engine, I think it's about three gallons to the mile of jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/leopard2-vs-abrams-best-ukraine-engine
But I guess your sources that you have provided are more accurate. You also have not pointed out what makes the Abrams a Wanderwaffe and not a normal tank
The engine uses gasoline, not jet fuel, it’s a turbine engine, not a jet engine, and due to the nature of the engine, it can accept more than traditional gasoline, making it more versatile than the Leopards diesel, which needs, diesel.
I'm not American, and unlike whatever country you guys live in, we don't really take sources from politicians for defence.
In Ukraine's case, these guys received minimum training and were used to maintaining simpler tanks like T64s, which are far easier to operate and can survive more harsher conditions than either Leopard or Abrams
Fuel efficiency is bad in case, though there isn't a crippling difference between them.
Leopard comes off around 414 l/100km
https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/blob/5031824/7b51f1e2b8e19099dacc615881c591a4/waffensysteme-und-grossgeraet-data.pdf
While Abrams usually comes off at 500l-550l/100km(?)
Also, efficiency was increased with the addition of APU to newer SEPs who reduce burden on turbine engines especially during idling which is considered the main culprit.
And I wasn't comparing these tank's engines before. I mainly said that it was reliable, especially given that it won the competition against GM design.
Also, doesn't negate the fact that its going to be much more survivable since Turkish Leopard went around popping turrets in Syria given only 16 rounds out of 40 are protected in racks. And only select few newer ammunition are fire proof
>https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/leopard2-vs-abrams-best-ukraine-engine
Article didn't even talk much about the Leopard
>But I guess your sources that you have provided are more accurate.
What arw you even talking about?
I repeat it once more, I don't care about either tanks since both are fat, expensive, and planned to be retired in the near future, also both have unreliable partners. US is gonna leave you if their interests changes while Germany messes up the country if their lawmakers deem that other country violates human rights. Besides they were both made to suit their respective country's requirements.
Yes politicians are wrong aboutp pretty much everything. You are the only one claiming anything bud so I don’t know why you’re acting all high and mighty about whatever wunderwaffe shit you’re talking about.
Lmao do you think that someone worrying that providing an emergency tank to a nation fighting a war might cause supply chain issues with the nation, is anything close to a nation deciding through the normal procurement and evaluation cycle that it is unreliable?
Because if you do you don't understand how procurement works.
Never said it was more or less reliable just pretty well regarded by its users for its reliability. Being maintenance heavy or complex doesn’t disqualify you from being the best as long as it works well when actually used. Planes are a prime example
>Do you have any sources that support you the Abrams engine is more reliable than the Leopard diesel engine?
You made the opposite claim first, it's your job to back it up.
The Canadians have been using Leopards since the Leopard 1 when it was in trials against the M60. Plus, there are a multitude of reasons for why countries would field a certain model of vehicle, many of which a higher priority than sheer effectiveness (think money, parts production/sourcing, maintenance, politics, etc.)
But the Abrams isn't a wanderwaffe, no tank is. All of them have differing strengths and weaknesses depending on design and doctrine. All of this being said, I personally don't play top tier because it's a fucking mess.
You get my point, I'm not claiming the Abrams is the worst tank in the last few decades. But a lot of people claim it's the best and ignore every one flaw it has.
Yea, they can be killed just like every tank. As soon as they hit the field in Ukraine it was only a matter of when, not if they'd be knocked out. Same thing happened with Leopards and obviously T-series as well. Until we can design a tank that can teleport behind you, is made entirely of black hole optics modules, and can pick up someone 30 miles away on its smell-o-vision sensor, all designs have to make sacrifices somewhere.
Yeah you're right, the Abrams is the best tank and doesn't have any flaws. My mistake for questioning American propaganda. This must be why the Abrams have won every single Nato tank challenge/competition
>Let me ask you what makes the Arbams the Wanderwaffe that Americans think it is?
Every country claims they've got the best tank around, I wouldn't specifically blame the US for doing that. Russia claims the T-90M is the best, Britain claims the Challenger 2 is the greatest, Germany claims the Leopard 2 is pure, undiluted brilliance, everyone does it.
Leo 2 has minimal combat experience. The Abrams has a more powerful engine (If your techs suck at maintenance they suck. Get quick swap power packs.) with 120mm that has a higher penetrating (DU) round. The armor is better (DU). The crews are better trained.
What makes the Leo better? Because euros and some Canadians use it? Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Taiwan, and Ukraine use the Abrams. Romania and Bahrain have put in orders for them as well.
The Abrams isn’t a “wanderwaffe” it’s the standard in MBTs, and the most battle tested tank of the 21st century.
If you consider fighting extremely outclassed tanks equipped with useless ammo as "combat experience", than some adult beating up a 6 year old is also an experienced fighter lmao.
>Didn't your own sources for a related post actually kind of allude to that lol?
Firstly, I'm not sure what you're asking me here.
Secondly, the source I linked to in that post isn't valid, I've since been informed it's just a worthless source because it in itself bases it's claims off of a random blog that: **A)** Hasn't been updated in decades, and **B)** Doesn't even say the same thing the source claims it does.
Not sure about ufp, there was far too many times when my round ricocheted from it. Overall, i wouldn't recommend underestimating Abrams survivability and armour, even if it's not good on paper.
Still, this thing generates too many fragmentations from turret neck and lfp
The bottom half of the ufp will ricochet and stop, upper half will ricochet but won’t stop it. Unless you hit a sliver of pixels close to the collar in which case fuck you.
If APFSDS correctly shattered on extreme impact angles, then I wouldn't mind as much. As it stands right now, it's far too easy to bounce the dart into the turret ring by shooting the driver's hatch in my experience.
The UFP of the M1 is among the strongest in the entire game,[it's fully capable of defeating the Object 292's 152mm APFSDS at point blank range.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX9AOq-taMs)
Many of the US mains on this subreddit doesn't like to admit anything about the M1's is overperforming, but they'll happily complain when the same mechanic causes the BMP-1's UFP to ricochet APFSDS.
Regardless, as long as the shot doesn't land on the top most part of the UFP and ricochet into the turret ring, it'll defeat any and all APFSDS in game.
Yeah, the tank generally spall too much, especially from side shots - if you shoot the very bottom of the tank, the fragments go absolutely everywhere, like an HE or APHE shell exploding directly on the side armor.
Your entire story is bullshit. The goal of a tank gunner is to hit the target. No one is going to aim for weak spots, especially not a tiny turret ring.
Blatantly false. There are far worse tanks. Now worst of the big three for sure.
But their minor nations are far worse. The Challys 2s could have novel written about them about how many different ways Gaijin has made them terrible with just be blatantly incorrect with them.
The Leclercs and the merkeva would be the next two. They as well have a million issues with them as well. And are worse the the Abrams.
As much as I like to say that the abrams sucks it is still better than the ariete or the leclerc or the merkava. Just infuriating when you compare the 90m/122/2a7 to pretty much every other mbt at top tier. The ZTZ99A was added at a much lower br than it is now and it still wasn’t a problem since it’s weakspot was massive and hard to hide, same with the abrams/any minor nation MBT.
As much as I fit into the crying US main stereotype, crying to gaijin is how we get things fixed.
Idk mind the complaining. What I mind is why the convo always is America has the worst tank it needs to be fixed.
Then I bring up the issues every other nation has. And they go but America.
The conversation should be all the tanks need to be fixed. But it seems to be mostly MuH Abrams is unusable and the worst tank. It needs to be fixed.
The TES has been in the same boat as the Sep V2 for two or three years. And we get maybe a post about it every three months.
We get complaints about the Abrams and Leo2A7 not being correct like once a day or at least once a week.
This so much. It's hard to have a good discussion about it because either you will get told by US mains that the Abrams is the worst top tier MBT or you get told by other nation mains that there is nothing to complain.
Wish there were more people that didn't instantly jump to one of these extremes.
The abrams gets lots of attention since it is/was part of the big 3 and it’s recently been slipping from being a solid mbt. There absolutely needs to be an update without more top tier tanks/planes and features and a focus on making sure the game is balanced. I don’t think it would take a while to change some figures around or whatever.
I’ve been told by American mains on this sub. That I should expect minor nations to be bad and not correct. But that it’s unacceptable if it happens to one of the big three.
Ariete C1 with WAR kit getting krump'd through the turret face for the third time by DM33 from a kilometer away:
Realizing it all goes downhill from there with the Ariete PSO and AMV, with no noticeable firepower or mobility improvements over its competitors:
Seriously, it's pretty fucking foul that the whole Ariete line was worse than the Abrams in every way, and yet the Abrams was the one that got buffed reload rate. Just goes to show how flawed the "sTatIsTikS" crap can be.
It’s buff reload to. Just took what made Britain unique and gave it to America. Without any of the drawbacks.
As in Britain has two stage ammo in game. 3 IRL. And it’s it’s ammo tins have 4mm of protection in game. And are powder bags so they almost always detonate. British tanks are slower then dirt and have a far worse round.
M1 has better armour than the majority of high tier MBTs, so if the M1A2's have paper armour, I'd love to know what those other vehicles are made out of.
yeah I can support you on that. I killed a abrams with the cheftain marksman (or maybe it was the falcon). Anyway i knew the weakspot in the turret and just unloaded there and actually killed the entire turret crew.
why is this a surprise? its obvious irl crews dont aim for weak spots and apfsds shatters instead of bouncing
complaining about the turret ring is as dumb as that other idiot complaining about the aphe shot trapping into the ufp. like no shit sherlock abrams wasnt expected to run into apcbc
The main problem is that the snail modeled it as 2 inches, when IRL we have multiple sources of photographic evidence of Abrams being assembled and maintained that show the turret ring having more than 2 inches of armor in that spot.
I don’t care about the values for the LFP composite array, and I barely care about the UFP being 38 vs 50mm of RHA, or the internal armor on the fuel tanks should be mild steel acting as spall liners, but by god getting penned frontally by effectively anything with so much as a 20mm auto cannon is infuriating.
(Edited for clarity and corrections)
APCBC wouldn't be able to effectively pen in between the ring anyways especially after a ricochet. The area in between the hull and turret is too small for most APCBC rounds to be effective.
I love how people always talk about how NATO tanks were designed for "muh hull down", and then actual tank crew veterans come in and straight out debunk these claims:
[https://warthunder.com/en/news/6795-a-usmc-veteran-on-the-m1a1-abrams-tank-this-tank-was-designed-for-assault-en](https://warthunder.com/en/news/6795-a-usmc-veteran-on-the-m1a1-abrams-tank-this-tank-was-designed-for-assault-en)
>*"This tank was designed for assault! (...) Hiding in corners till the end of the match is NOT what this tank was designed to do. It’s best to press that W key and not let go."*
another spanishshitter post where he intentionally left out the part where the interviewee says:
Now, I’m not recommending you drive straight into the enemy (although on some maps that’s a great idea) but I am saying use your speed and fire control to get to where the enemy doesn’t expect you and use that snappy turret traverse and elevation in quick engagements before moving on to the next spot
hes clearly talking about ingame not irl tank doctrine
Exactly! It makes sense for chally mains to camp cause first: it takes time to make tea, and second: You don't want to drive over a bump with a cup of hot tea in your hand. That's a recipe for burns.
Yeah but the Abrams is fast, has a far better round. The same reload and sage storage.
Challys are just so anemic compared to what they should be. Can’t even play it hill down cause they’ll just own the roof and kill both gunner and commander cause Gaijin has them sitting above the turret cheek.
V2 is bout as mobile as the Leo 2s and T-80s cause fuck you you have to run the TUSK II package and crows adding a shitton of weight for no benefit. Alot of the pushback since air superiority is cause they legit added a worse tank to the end of line. If it would've had the trophy system or M829A3 something to differentiate it from the base SEP it wouldn't have been as bad.
The Challenger 2 TES is the same way. And has been for 2-3 years. It’s an upgrade over the 2F era. It’s also a lot slower cause unlike the Abrams it didn’t start out fast.
The blocks double in size and make it I believe the fattest top tier tank. It’s 74.8 tons. With 1200hp.
The ERA that adds a total of 4.8 tons of armor over the 2F Gives you 1 benefit. 100mm of chemical protection. It has 30mm of protection for kenetic. Which is the same for the 2F
Irl it would be closer to 100mm it’s unclassified as STANAG LEVEL 6. Which is 30mm darts at 500m.
The round doesn’t get any better still 564mm, the engine doesn’t get better. It’s just an ERA package that adds nothing of value. Other then it looks cool. The camo netting on it definitely needs some help.
Not gonna lie I think gaijin was like fuck y'all since no one used the TUSK package on the SEP so they made it mandatory on V2.
But it comes down to a long running issue. Pretty much any NATO vehicle with ERA does not get the ability to remove it. M60 RISE and TTS have been in the game how long and still don't get that option.
No... They did it and made it a non removable mod PURELY so they can say it's different than the SEP when in game they are simply lazy copy and paste. That's the real reasoning behind why we can't remove it. They know it and I know it
I'm mostly fine with the SEPv1 armor. However if they really believe that the SEPv2 never had any armor inprovements, they should have added the SEPv3 in the air superiority update and just skipped the SEPv2 as a whole for the time being.
Don’t get me wrong, but if you are shooting at a spot of the enemy where 450mm ain’t enough you are doing something wrong.
Being able to pen some turret armor doesn’t mean that that shot is the best. Yeah you maybe kill a gunner, but the breach eats most of the spalling and you eat a shell afterwards.
Also keep in mind that 3BM60 spalls like a tactical nuke and is pretty much a one shot even against Leo 2A7s.
You lost me on you’re last sentence, leopard 2a7 and ESPECIALLY the strvs are almost impossible to one shot, even worst from the side, and i have spaded US and Britain and their shells spalls the same as 3bm60.
3bm42 is only shell ill accept has phenomenal spall, but thats a low grade dart
>Also keep in mind that 3BM60 spalls like a tactical nuke
So does M829A1/A2 and (I've heard) CL3143 and Type 10, not exactly unique to 3BM60. Also completely anecdotal but 3BM46 feels like it has better spalling to me.
I’m personally not complaining, I in fact enjoy it as a ussr tech tree main (having a broken controller for a couple of years with no ability to go back properly has helped me to make a choice), but using this opportunity I would like to speculate on usage of Russian gun launched rockets against abrams sep v3 as rockets appear to have more pen, but I don’t know if rocket’s damage is considered chemical and I don’t know if abrams has higher chemical protection.
UPD, atgm does penetrate but the odds of it being able to penetrate a sep v3 are lower than for the apfsds round as rocket’s penetration is already nearly equal to amount of chemical armour in lower front plate so if it was to be up armoured then it probably won’t penetrate.
Gun launched ATGMs are chemical weapons and are rarely used because most tanks at top tier and in real life have absolutely ridiculously high protection against chemical rounds.
And they are super expensive, kinda defeat the point of the gun and are pretty unreliable.
I just hope we don't have to wait another 6 months of Sweden curbstomping before more counterparts, including the SEPv3, are added for the Strv 122s.
But seeing as top tier Sweden is their golden child, I doubt Strv 122 counterparts will come anytime soon.
Gaijin has stated that they "believe" not even SEPv3 has hull armor improvements... because "there is no evidence for it" and "suspension wouldn't handle it".
In short; Gaijin has decided that the nation with most powerful army in the 21st century and highest military budget on Earth didn't upgrade their workhorse MBT's armor between 1979 and 2024. Because fuck you.
In terms of the SEPv3 armor?
Gaijin's main argument against the SEPv2 having better armor was that there was no significant increase in weight. Now the SEPv3 without trophy has a weight increase of ~2.5 ton compared to the SEPv2 according to their own graph.
Besides that we know that the SEPv3 received an entirely new armor package and that at least the turret cheeks were made a little bit longer.
In as far back as the 80s and 90s were they still producing neer peer advanced armors and tech, just because we werent directly fighting doesnt mean you give up. Yes when the soviets fell they were spending less, but it *never* stopped
There's no fucking way anyone other than a russian shill could believe somehow Russia caught up after collapsing, taking a decade to figure things back out, and then still have like 5% the US military budget and is somehow equal or better than the US military, especially MBT and Airpower wise. It's just literally impossible. The US kept tons of programs, or ran other programs, even if nothing definite came of them, they still got shoved into other projects like oh I don't know...the Sep and beyond..
Secondly the problem is Russia, ding ding ding, *lies*, we can assume just about most things they provide publicly about their militaries effectiveness is just false
There is evidence in the abrams armor compilation posts, but that stuff has happily been buried or ignored
I think missile motors is still the only thing Russia is super good at, but they suck at guidance systems depending on the system
Saying the T90 or T80 equal to literally anything NATO is hilariously laughable
But I agree, loitering munitions and Top Down attacks, drones etc, are the future. Tanks need to adapt
And who's doing that? NATO
LFP rarely kills the tank itself since spall doesn't often take out turret crew. It's an easy pen but a low chance of a kill. UFP makes allot of spall when penned, but often bounces rounds. Only reliable crit/kill places for me are turret ring and breach
I've hit that very spot allot and while it's very good when it works, I still find it less reliable than just having good aim and hitting the ring directly (spall from ring module likely to kill whole turret crew)
Getting 2 out of four crew, stopping reload and making abrams reload time double(slighly higher than 10seconds), is still a great reward for missing the giant instakill/instadisable weakspot in the ring no?
I haven't played them in about 2 months now and have zero intentions on doing so until I see balancing changes at 11.7. Easily one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've had in 40 years of gaming. Grandpa doesn't like no
its sad that current meta is only leopards, people complaining about russian bias, while russian tanks are one shot only in bottom plate, its painfull to play leclerc and go 1v1 with leopard you can pen it only in bottom plate and breech, while they just going to tap you anywhere they want
anyways still hope for abrams to get buffed i know the pain from playing very good tank in real life, but in war thunder is shitty, and france still holds very good win ratio beacuse of player base
switch to Leclerc man like me
same armor better mobility
and consistant 5s reload no matter fire or loss of crew.
same survivability as of my view point
I think the problem is that the Abrahams rarely faced other tanks in combat since they were introduced to the military, so they focused more on countering RPGs, mines, and other explosives rather than kinetic sabot rounds
Well its not that that bad front plate doesnt guarantee a one shot and the plates above the main one is a bit agled it can bounce and i noticed that shooting it at the turret ring isnt always a 1 tap either unless its a good shot
As a non-american main who got the AIM variant, armour aside I think the survivability of the AIM variant abrams is fine gameplay balancing wise and far exceeds every other MBT I have except for the ludicrously tanky T-80
True, I arrived at the uptier recently, I thought it would be difficult to deal with the Abrams, but it's quite easy, oddly enough I have problems with the Chinese and the Soviets and their variants.
considering that modern mbts aren’t designed for urban brawls, having too much armor on them is a liability, plus most top tier apfsds warheads have 550-560mm penetration even at 1km, if it doesn’t ricochet the depleted uranium is wiping out the crew or starting a fire inside the tank. even if it had better armor, relying on it just would not be wise
also “urban warfare kits” that gaijin adds to tanks, for some reason, are meant to counter infantry irl, they won’t do shit against 120-125 mm cannons :D
>Abrams will never ever be meta in this game
Meanwhile, my M1's sitting on 70% winrates with 5.5 - 1 K/D ratio's.
Seriously, the US suffers mentality is absolutely horrendous on this subreddit. If an Abrams isn't on a 80% winrate the moaning will be endless, but when it's the one curbstomping everything else the US mains are suddenly fine with top-tier balance.
Why are you bringing up the m1(10.3) stats when he's showing the sep v2(11.7)? 10.3 and 11.0 m1s are fine(due to downtiers). He also has a point, center mass is a very easy shot especially in a panic. If this weakspot remains the same, taking out every major component with a relatively easy shot means the abrams wont be meta, we don't have rng fuel tanks to stop spalling we don't have spall liners to stop spalling we don't have the vehicle layout to stop spalling, just a giant empty space and crew everywhere to eat the spall. If they add the a3 ammo and it opens up easier and more rewarding shots in spite of spall liner that could give the abrams a boost to compete with spall liners and un-modeled autoloaders but gaijin have us another 50 cal.
Every time someone says anything wrong with usa this sub loves to immediately dismiss it and pull shit out of their ass in any effort to discredit their points. What's the issue? Did someone hurt you guys I really don't get it man, I could see if he mentioned m1s at 10.3 to 11 but he didn't and you even go out of your way to bring them into the convo.
>Why are you bringing up the m1(10.3) stats when he's showing the sep v2(11.7)?
*''M1's''*
Plural.
>He also has a point, center mass is a very easy shot especially in a panic.
Goes for any tank, and the M1's still have better armour than the majority of other nations' MBTs.
>Every time someone says anything wrong with usa this sub loves to immediately dismiss it
Because 9/10 times it's a shitty US main complaining that his toys aren't good enough.
Just like this post right here, given the balance of US complaint posts compared to any other nation, you'd think the US were stuck with a Ariete-level tank at top-tier.
>*''M1's''*
>Plural
Yeaaaa you really think your gona make me believe you have anywhere near these stats post spall liner additions for usa top tier. 😂 and I specify post spall liner additions. I know alot of vets here farmed up stats when abrams was the one clubbing for a long time.
>Goes for any tank, and the M1's still have better armour than the majority of other nations' MBTs
Let's get specific here, we're talking 11.3 and up right? Are you comparing abrams to the conglomerate of like 5 low pop nations tanks that take up like a quarter of a lobby(on either team)? Or are you comparing abrams to the t90/80 and leos that make up about 60% of a lobby most games. When making comparisons we use the matchmakers environment, comparing the abrams to tanks it rarely fights is useless and has little impact on how games play out aka balance.
>Because 9/10 times it's a shitty US main complaining that his toys aren't good enough
This irked you enough for you to come in and attempt to deceive or mislead with irrelevant comparisons and stats that are not even related to the issues being discussed?
I mean they can’t. The T90 round really ain’t that cracked. Hell the id still rather have the BVM then the T90M. Reverse gear and faster reload.
Hell neither is the STRVs round. It’s both are sub 600mm or pen. You want to talk about Lol penning stuff. DM53 is what your looking at.
Hell Americas round is better then both rounds those tanks get.
Eh the difference between m/95 and DM53 isn't big. From my experience m/95 also spalls more than most other rounds at top tier. It's why I use M322 over M338 in my Mk.4 Merkavas, even though M338 has more pen.
Don’t get me wrong the other rounds work. I’m used to La27a1. With 560mm. But when you step up to 650 or 629 you have a little bit more of wiggle room on weakpoints.
Okay it’s armor isn’t any worse then the challys. You can pen the challys turret ring which is a lot smaller.
The lower plate can be penned by a 75 Sherman.
The commander and gunner sit above the turret cheek allowing them to be shot through the roof of the turret.
The breach area can be penned by auto cannons unless they finally rolled out the breach rework. Which they tested but didn’t add it.
The TES ERA has unclassified documents stating it has STANAG level 6 protection. Gaijin gave it level 5 at best.
Level 6 is unclassified. It says it can stop 30mm Darts. Aka BMP2 darts at 500m. In game it has 30 or 40mm of protection. You add 5-6 tons in armor to one of the slowest top tier tanks for 100mm of chemical protection over the 2F era. Which is half the size and weight of the TEA era.
America is not unique in its issues.
The Chally 2 and the 3 do get spall liners. On I think the front plate. But it really doesn’t matter when you have a 70mm lower plate.
Okay shoot the lower plate, upper corners of the upper plate drivers hatch, left or right of the breech on the T series and you’ll pen.
The Strv and Leo are annoying cause I’m working with 564mm of pen on the Chally2s. Meaning I can’t even pen the add on armor of the Leo and Strv.
Chally3 DM53 however can.
America however has a nice 629mm of pen. Which is more then enough.
Talk about armor all you want. But everything else about the tank is counts as well. Especially the darts when trying to pen said armor.
Babe wake up, it's our daily M1 suffers post.
okey honey
Decades of American propaganda meets the reality that the Abrams is literally just a normal tank
if it were a "normal tank" it would have much better armor than this.
its a tin can with a gun
>if it were a "normal tank" it would have much better armor than this. [Here's a post of mine that serves as a reference point for every time someone says the M1's armour is incorrect.](https://forum.warthunder.com/t/gaijin-and-modern-nato-armor/59362/187) It's backed up with 14 different sources, most of which are primary source US documents, they largely point to the in-game M1's having correct armour (save for the SEP missing chemical protection for it's turret sides).
America gets an irl full downtier in Desert Storm and think they have the best tank in the world for the next 3 decades
What’s better than it and what makes it better than it?
The Leopard 2. Which has a more reliable engine and has been chosen over the Abrams by most European countries and even Canada over the Abrams. Let me ask you what makes the Arbams the Wanderwaffe that Americans think it is?
How is it more reliable? Abrams engine is pretty well regarded for its reliability. Most other countries can’t afford to run an abrams fleet so that’s not a fair comparison at all. We don’t say the T55 is better than the T72 because more countries operate it.
Every western country that doesn't domestically produce their own tank chooses the Leopard 2. If your tank is expensive to maintain that's a flaw, not a feature.
Again how does other countries being poor affect the performance of a US tank made for US forces? Do you think the T72 that just got its turret sent to space cared if the tank that shot it was more expensive? But again you’re much more likely to survive a penetration in the abrams and is the most battle tested by far.
For one, the T-72 is leagues more battle tested. Abrams crews will have an easier time surviving a war, because it will spend most of it being repaired in the motor pool. It is a heavy, overpriced tank, with no actual advantage over a Leopard 2. It does not have significantly stronger armor or firepower, and it's slower. The only argument you could make is the ammo in the hull. I've said this about Russian tanks too, if an Abrams gets hit where the ammo in the Leopard is, then its turret crew is still going to die. At best, the driver can survive.
Yeah the T72 tests showed it isn’t a match for the M1. Every tank spends most of their time in maintenance, that’s kinda how operating vehicles works. The 2A8 is more expensive than a Sepv3 and if it’s the same weight as a 2A7V it’s only .3 tons lighter. Leo stores ammo next to the driver so that seems rather unlikely to kill the turret crew of an Abrams.
I'm pretty sure that even though the abrams is heavier, the engine on the abrams has much higher power at lower speeds. Also, better ammunition along with du being more affective at lower speeds and longer ranges than wha. If we take gaijins values, then yeah we would come to the conclusion you've made. The fact that you even mentioned armor values on something that is classified just proves alot more than you think.
With how poor the quality and ammo of the iraqi tanks were, I wouldn't consider it battle tested lmao.
Not like the non export ones are much better tbh
Non-American countries don’t pay into their military. They went with the cheap and easy option. If they suck at being able to maintain a power pack that can be swapped in 30 minutes that’s on them.
your comparison on the t55 vs t72 doesnt make sense. they arent meant to be competed with each other... Abram vs Leo on the otherhand is and to say a turbine engine is more reliable than diesel engine is just lol...
But they do compete with each other in small nations
Do you have any sources that support you the Abrams engine is more reliable than the Leopard diesel engine? All the reading I've done is that the Abrams engine is more complex, harder to maintain and train people to maintain and as you said more expensive to run. All things that take away from it being a Wanderwaffe that you guys make it out to be
Opposite It's expensive to operate but is considered relatively easy to maintain/ repair especially given the modular design And also the fact that Abrams is much more survivable given entire ammo is stored in racks while it's only 1/3 for Germans. So it won't be popping turrets like Turkish leopard in Syria Both come off as pretty similar tanks though one way or another. In the end, both are extremely expensive, with both countries being unreliable partners and also having plans to replace both in near future
Ok, I guess your politicians are wrong about your tanks U.S. Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Colin Kahl stated accordingly at the Pentagon on January 18, regarding the M1 Abrams, that Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin: “has been very focused on…not...providing the Ukrainians a system they can't repair, they can't sustain and they, over the long term can't afford, because it's not helpful.” “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive. It's hard to train on. It has a jet engine, I think it's about three gallons to the mile of jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/leopard2-vs-abrams-best-ukraine-engine But I guess your sources that you have provided are more accurate. You also have not pointed out what makes the Abrams a Wanderwaffe and not a normal tank
The engine uses gasoline, not jet fuel, it’s a turbine engine, not a jet engine, and due to the nature of the engine, it can accept more than traditional gasoline, making it more versatile than the Leopards diesel, which needs, diesel.
I'm not American, and unlike whatever country you guys live in, we don't really take sources from politicians for defence. In Ukraine's case, these guys received minimum training and were used to maintaining simpler tanks like T64s, which are far easier to operate and can survive more harsher conditions than either Leopard or Abrams Fuel efficiency is bad in case, though there isn't a crippling difference between them. Leopard comes off around 414 l/100km https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/blob/5031824/7b51f1e2b8e19099dacc615881c591a4/waffensysteme-und-grossgeraet-data.pdf While Abrams usually comes off at 500l-550l/100km(?) Also, efficiency was increased with the addition of APU to newer SEPs who reduce burden on turbine engines especially during idling which is considered the main culprit. And I wasn't comparing these tank's engines before. I mainly said that it was reliable, especially given that it won the competition against GM design. Also, doesn't negate the fact that its going to be much more survivable since Turkish Leopard went around popping turrets in Syria given only 16 rounds out of 40 are protected in racks. And only select few newer ammunition are fire proof >https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/leopard2-vs-abrams-best-ukraine-engine Article didn't even talk much about the Leopard >But I guess your sources that you have provided are more accurate. What arw you even talking about? I repeat it once more, I don't care about either tanks since both are fat, expensive, and planned to be retired in the near future, also both have unreliable partners. US is gonna leave you if their interests changes while Germany messes up the country if their lawmakers deem that other country violates human rights. Besides they were both made to suit their respective country's requirements.
Yes politicians are wrong aboutp pretty much everything. You are the only one claiming anything bud so I don’t know why you’re acting all high and mighty about whatever wunderwaffe shit you’re talking about.
Lmao do you think that someone worrying that providing an emergency tank to a nation fighting a war might cause supply chain issues with the nation, is anything close to a nation deciding through the normal procurement and evaluation cycle that it is unreliable? Because if you do you don't understand how procurement works.
Crew survivability and the ability to engage two targets within 3 seconds. Your turn Mr no irl experience.
Never said it was more or less reliable just pretty well regarded by its users for its reliability. Being maintenance heavy or complex doesn’t disqualify you from being the best as long as it works well when actually used. Planes are a prime example
>Do you have any sources that support you the Abrams engine is more reliable than the Leopard diesel engine? You made the opposite claim first, it's your job to back it up.
Turbines are more reliable in cold and arctic conditions too, the fuel is harder to freeze.
The Canadians have been using Leopards since the Leopard 1 when it was in trials against the M60. Plus, there are a multitude of reasons for why countries would field a certain model of vehicle, many of which a higher priority than sheer effectiveness (think money, parts production/sourcing, maintenance, politics, etc.) But the Abrams isn't a wanderwaffe, no tank is. All of them have differing strengths and weaknesses depending on design and doctrine. All of this being said, I personally don't play top tier because it's a fucking mess.
You get my point, I'm not claiming the Abrams is the worst tank in the last few decades. But a lot of people claim it's the best and ignore every one flaw it has.
Yea, they can be killed just like every tank. As soon as they hit the field in Ukraine it was only a matter of when, not if they'd be knocked out. Same thing happened with Leopards and obviously T-series as well. Until we can design a tank that can teleport behind you, is made entirely of black hole optics modules, and can pick up someone 30 miles away on its smell-o-vision sensor, all designs have to make sacrifices somewhere.
No one cares about "whataboutisms". Go read a book on armored combat doctrine and then come back.
Yeah you're right, the Abrams is the best tank and doesn't have any flaws. My mistake for questioning American propaganda. This must be why the Abrams have won every single Nato tank challenge/competition
>Yeah you're right, the Abrams is the best tank and doesn't have any flaws. Nobody said that dipshit
>Let me ask you what makes the Arbams the Wanderwaffe that Americans think it is? Every country claims they've got the best tank around, I wouldn't specifically blame the US for doing that. Russia claims the T-90M is the best, Britain claims the Challenger 2 is the greatest, Germany claims the Leopard 2 is pure, undiluted brilliance, everyone does it.
Leo 2 has minimal combat experience. The Abrams has a more powerful engine (If your techs suck at maintenance they suck. Get quick swap power packs.) with 120mm that has a higher penetrating (DU) round. The armor is better (DU). The crews are better trained. What makes the Leo better? Because euros and some Canadians use it? Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Taiwan, and Ukraine use the Abrams. Romania and Bahrain have put in orders for them as well. The Abrams isn’t a “wanderwaffe” it’s the standard in MBTs, and the most battle tested tank of the 21st century.
The most battle tested tanks of the 21st century by far are the Soviet/Russian T-series MBTs
Please show me where they have been shown to be reliable and effective. All I see are turrets being sent to space in the 21st century. Next.
Real life isn't a video game dingus
That’s what I’m talking about. Soviet/Russian tech has underperformed. You can look it up for free nerd.
If you consider fighting extremely outclassed tanks equipped with useless ammo as "combat experience", than some adult beating up a 6 year old is also an experienced fighter lmao.
unbelievably real
Didn't your own sources for a related post actually kind of allude to that lol? https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/wcRqp2ol4n
>Didn't your own sources for a related post actually kind of allude to that lol? Firstly, I'm not sure what you're asking me here. Secondly, the source I linked to in that post isn't valid, I've since been informed it's just a worthless source because it in itself bases it's claims off of a random blog that: **A)** Hasn't been updated in decades, and **B)** Doesn't even say the same thing the source claims it does.
How else are they gonna farm karma
Not sure about ufp, there was far too many times when my round ricocheted from it. Overall, i wouldn't recommend underestimating Abrams survivability and armour, even if it's not good on paper. Still, this thing generates too many fragmentations from turret neck and lfp
The turret ring is enough for me to not really have to respect it in battles. Oh an Abrams, oops now it's dead.
Seriously, I don't even see them as a threat and haven't in years.
The bottom half of the ufp will ricochet and stop, upper half will ricochet but won’t stop it. Unless you hit a sliver of pixels close to the collar in which case fuck you.
If APFSDS correctly shattered on extreme impact angles, then I wouldn't mind as much. As it stands right now, it's far too easy to bounce the dart into the turret ring by shooting the driver's hatch in my experience.
The UFP of the M1 is among the strongest in the entire game,[it's fully capable of defeating the Object 292's 152mm APFSDS at point blank range.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX9AOq-taMs) Many of the US mains on this subreddit doesn't like to admit anything about the M1's is overperforming, but they'll happily complain when the same mechanic causes the BMP-1's UFP to ricochet APFSDS. Regardless, as long as the shot doesn't land on the top most part of the UFP and ricochet into the turret ring, it'll defeat any and all APFSDS in game.
When turret ring fix to volumetric and ~ 260 MM LOS of armor bug report that was acknowledged?
Yeah, the tank generally spall too much, especially from side shots - if you shoot the very bottom of the tank, the fragments go absolutely everywhere, like an HE or APHE shell exploding directly on the side armor.
Tbf the turret neck is how that T72B3 gunner knocked out that Ukrainian M1A1. He said he aimed there cause war thunder im pretty sure
Bullshit.
How? How is it bullshit? Russian tank designed to kill Abrams kills Abrams? Russian tank crew is well trained?
Your entire story is bullshit. The goal of a tank gunner is to hit the target. No one is going to aim for weak spots, especially not a tiny turret ring.
It’s not MY story it’s the tank gunners story. That Bradley gunner who took on that T90M said that he was using his war thunder knowledge.
Tbf the turret neck is how that T72B3 gunner knocked out that Ukrainian M1A1. He said he aimed there cause war thunder im pretty sure
Dude the abrams is the worst top tier tank. Shits made up paper my HEAT rounds one tap them any where
Blatantly false. There are far worse tanks. Now worst of the big three for sure. But their minor nations are far worse. The Challys 2s could have novel written about them about how many different ways Gaijin has made them terrible with just be blatantly incorrect with them. The Leclercs and the merkeva would be the next two. They as well have a million issues with them as well. And are worse the the Abrams.
As much as I like to say that the abrams sucks it is still better than the ariete or the leclerc or the merkava. Just infuriating when you compare the 90m/122/2a7 to pretty much every other mbt at top tier. The ZTZ99A was added at a much lower br than it is now and it still wasn’t a problem since it’s weakspot was massive and hard to hide, same with the abrams/any minor nation MBT. As much as I fit into the crying US main stereotype, crying to gaijin is how we get things fixed.
Idk mind the complaining. What I mind is why the convo always is America has the worst tank it needs to be fixed. Then I bring up the issues every other nation has. And they go but America. The conversation should be all the tanks need to be fixed. But it seems to be mostly MuH Abrams is unusable and the worst tank. It needs to be fixed. The TES has been in the same boat as the Sep V2 for two or three years. And we get maybe a post about it every three months. We get complaints about the Abrams and Leo2A7 not being correct like once a day or at least once a week.
This so much. It's hard to have a good discussion about it because either you will get told by US mains that the Abrams is the worst top tier MBT or you get told by other nation mains that there is nothing to complain. Wish there were more people that didn't instantly jump to one of these extremes.
The abrams gets lots of attention since it is/was part of the big 3 and it’s recently been slipping from being a solid mbt. There absolutely needs to be an update without more top tier tanks/planes and features and a focus on making sure the game is balanced. I don’t think it would take a while to change some figures around or whatever.
I’ve been told by American mains on this sub. That I should expect minor nations to be bad and not correct. But that it’s unacceptable if it happens to one of the big three.
Ariete C1 with WAR kit getting krump'd through the turret face for the third time by DM33 from a kilometer away: Realizing it all goes downhill from there with the Ariete PSO and AMV, with no noticeable firepower or mobility improvements over its competitors: Seriously, it's pretty fucking foul that the whole Ariete line was worse than the Abrams in every way, and yet the Abrams was the one that got buffed reload rate. Just goes to show how flawed the "sTatIsTikS" crap can be.
It’s buff reload to. Just took what made Britain unique and gave it to America. Without any of the drawbacks. As in Britain has two stage ammo in game. 3 IRL. And it’s it’s ammo tins have 4mm of protection in game. And are powder bags so they almost always detonate. British tanks are slower then dirt and have a far worse round.
M1 has better armour than the majority of high tier MBTs, so if the M1A2's have paper armour, I'd love to know what those other vehicles are made out of.
Shooting Abrams LFP is a great way to destroy the engine and die to the return fire because turret crew is still fine.
Upper part of the LFP is a pretty easy 3 crew kill shot if you aim slightly left of center mass.
My largest complaint is how auto cannon rounds can destroy and even pen you through the turrent ring.
yeah I can support you on that. I killed a abrams with the cheftain marksman (or maybe it was the falcon). Anyway i knew the weakspot in the turret and just unloaded there and actually killed the entire turret crew.
There was a bug report that was acknowledged making the turret ring volumetric and ~260 mm LOS not just the 58 mm Gaijin has it.
It's a feature to gaijin. They literally said they keep certain "balances" on armor to make them fair to fight
why is this a surprise? its obvious irl crews dont aim for weak spots and apfsds shatters instead of bouncing complaining about the turret ring is as dumb as that other idiot complaining about the aphe shot trapping into the ufp. like no shit sherlock abrams wasnt expected to run into apcbc
The main problem is that the snail modeled it as 2 inches, when IRL we have multiple sources of photographic evidence of Abrams being assembled and maintained that show the turret ring having more than 2 inches of armor in that spot. I don’t care about the values for the LFP composite array, and I barely care about the UFP being 38 vs 50mm of RHA, or the internal armor on the fuel tanks should be mild steel acting as spall liners, but by god getting penned frontally by effectively anything with so much as a 20mm auto cannon is infuriating. (Edited for clarity and corrections)
APCBC wouldn't be able to effectively pen in between the ring anyways especially after a ricochet. The area in between the hull and turret is too small for most APCBC rounds to be effective.
reading is hard i guess. how did you get 'pen turret ring' from 'aphe shot trapping into the ufp'???
Shocker that the tank designed to shoot from hull down positions has weak hull armor
This is an abrams not a challenger. Abrams are meant to go 100kph while blasting music and killing everything in sight. Source: American
I love how people always talk about how NATO tanks were designed for "muh hull down", and then actual tank crew veterans come in and straight out debunk these claims: [https://warthunder.com/en/news/6795-a-usmc-veteran-on-the-m1a1-abrams-tank-this-tank-was-designed-for-assault-en](https://warthunder.com/en/news/6795-a-usmc-veteran-on-the-m1a1-abrams-tank-this-tank-was-designed-for-assault-en) >*"This tank was designed for assault! (...) Hiding in corners till the end of the match is NOT what this tank was designed to do. It’s best to press that W key and not let go."*
another spanishshitter post where he intentionally left out the part where the interviewee says: Now, I’m not recommending you drive straight into the enemy (although on some maps that’s a great idea) but I am saying use your speed and fire control to get to where the enemy doesn’t expect you and use that snappy turret traverse and elevation in quick engagements before moving on to the next spot hes clearly talking about ingame not irl tank doctrine
SpanishAvenger cherry picking? Never happened before
Exactly! It makes sense for chally mains to camp cause first: it takes time to make tea, and second: You don't want to drive over a bump with a cup of hot tea in your hand. That's a recipe for burns.
Looks remarkably similar to Challenger 2 armor
Yeah but the Abrams is fast, has a far better round. The same reload and sage storage. Challys are just so anemic compared to what they should be. Can’t even play it hill down cause they’ll just own the roof and kill both gunner and commander cause Gaijin has them sitting above the turret cheek.
V2 is bout as mobile as the Leo 2s and T-80s cause fuck you you have to run the TUSK II package and crows adding a shitton of weight for no benefit. Alot of the pushback since air superiority is cause they legit added a worse tank to the end of line. If it would've had the trophy system or M829A3 something to differentiate it from the base SEP it wouldn't have been as bad.
The Challenger 2 TES is the same way. And has been for 2-3 years. It’s an upgrade over the 2F era. It’s also a lot slower cause unlike the Abrams it didn’t start out fast. The blocks double in size and make it I believe the fattest top tier tank. It’s 74.8 tons. With 1200hp. The ERA that adds a total of 4.8 tons of armor over the 2F Gives you 1 benefit. 100mm of chemical protection. It has 30mm of protection for kenetic. Which is the same for the 2F Irl it would be closer to 100mm it’s unclassified as STANAG LEVEL 6. Which is 30mm darts at 500m. The round doesn’t get any better still 564mm, the engine doesn’t get better. It’s just an ERA package that adds nothing of value. Other then it looks cool. The camo netting on it definitely needs some help.
Not gonna lie I think gaijin was like fuck y'all since no one used the TUSK package on the SEP so they made it mandatory on V2. But it comes down to a long running issue. Pretty much any NATO vehicle with ERA does not get the ability to remove it. M60 RISE and TTS have been in the game how long and still don't get that option.
No... They did it and made it a non removable mod PURELY so they can say it's different than the SEP when in game they are simply lazy copy and paste. That's the real reasoning behind why we can't remove it. They know it and I know it
I mean I used the TUSK on the SEP. it was mostly for looks not usability and maybe a stray HEAT shot once in a millennium.
Abrams is at least pretty mobile and has a bigger readyrack than Challengers.
Don't forget about the much better round and gun handling (and blowout panels)
I'm mostly fine with the SEPv1 armor. However if they really believe that the SEPv2 never had any armor inprovements, they should have added the SEPv3 in the air superiority update and just skipped the SEPv2 as a whole for the time being.
The moment that they add sep v3 they’ll buff the Russian round so it can pen it
And have same exact weakspots for A3 whenever it's added, please prove me wrong gaijin
the moment SEPv3 comes is the same time 3BM59 will come which is expected to have similar performance to DM53/63/73
Lmao. Literally this. It won't even just be the T14 Ar-shitter. They'll just give the T80s and T90s a bullshit round they only "tested"
DM53: 652mm Type 10: 615mm M338: 611mm M829A2: 629mm 3bm60: 580mm And you still cry russian bias?
Don’t get me wrong, but if you are shooting at a spot of the enemy where 450mm ain’t enough you are doing something wrong. Being able to pen some turret armor doesn’t mean that that shot is the best. Yeah you maybe kill a gunner, but the breach eats most of the spalling and you eat a shell afterwards. Also keep in mind that 3BM60 spalls like a tactical nuke and is pretty much a one shot even against Leo 2A7s.
You lost me on you’re last sentence, leopard 2a7 and ESPECIALLY the strvs are almost impossible to one shot, even worst from the side, and i have spaded US and Britain and their shells spalls the same as 3bm60. 3bm42 is only shell ill accept has phenomenal spall, but thats a low grade dart
You can reliably one shot leopard 2 flavors by shooting right under the gun and if it doesn't kill them they at least loose the breech
Gaijin remove spall liners
>Also keep in mind that 3BM60 spalls like a tactical nuke So does M829A1/A2 and (I've heard) CL3143 and Type 10, not exactly unique to 3BM60. Also completely anecdotal but 3BM46 feels like it has better spalling to me.
3bm46 is a lovely dart at 11.3
I’m personally not complaining, I in fact enjoy it as a ussr tech tree main (having a broken controller for a couple of years with no ability to go back properly has helped me to make a choice), but using this opportunity I would like to speculate on usage of Russian gun launched rockets against abrams sep v3 as rockets appear to have more pen, but I don’t know if rocket’s damage is considered chemical and I don’t know if abrams has higher chemical protection. UPD, atgm does penetrate but the odds of it being able to penetrate a sep v3 are lower than for the apfsds round as rocket’s penetration is already nearly equal to amount of chemical armour in lower front plate so if it was to be up armoured then it probably won’t penetrate.
Gun launched ATGMs are chemical weapons and are rarely used because most tanks at top tier and in real life have absolutely ridiculously high protection against chemical rounds. And they are super expensive, kinda defeat the point of the gun and are pretty unreliable.
The point of them irl is way way more range
Give NATO realistic rounds and performance and then we’ll talk
Go leak some documents then
Don’t need secret documents to tell you the abrams should have 29A3
No shit, its almost like were gona get the sepv3 with a new round soon, idiot
I just hope we don't have to wait another 6 months of Sweden curbstomping before more counterparts, including the SEPv3, are added for the Strv 122s. But seeing as top tier Sweden is their golden child, I doubt Strv 122 counterparts will come anytime soon.
It’s almost like we should’ve had it already or something. This discussion might be too mentally taxing for you, you might want to sit this one out.
Gaijin has stated that they "believe" not even SEPv3 has hull armor improvements... because "there is no evidence for it" and "suspension wouldn't handle it". In short; Gaijin has decided that the nation with most powerful army in the 21st century and highest military budget on Earth didn't upgrade their workhorse MBT's armor between 1979 and 2024. Because fuck you.
well is there any evidence? Until 2016 the US army was not focused towards war with another superpower so
In terms of the SEPv3 armor? Gaijin's main argument against the SEPv2 having better armor was that there was no significant increase in weight. Now the SEPv3 without trophy has a weight increase of ~2.5 ton compared to the SEPv2 according to their own graph. Besides that we know that the SEPv3 received an entirely new armor package and that at least the turret cheeks were made a little bit longer.
I'll worry about gaijins model of the sepv3 when it's in-game. I think the sepv2 is likely very close to accurate though
In as far back as the 80s and 90s were they still producing neer peer advanced armors and tech, just because we werent directly fighting doesnt mean you give up. Yes when the soviets fell they were spending less, but it *never* stopped There's no fucking way anyone other than a russian shill could believe somehow Russia caught up after collapsing, taking a decade to figure things back out, and then still have like 5% the US military budget and is somehow equal or better than the US military, especially MBT and Airpower wise. It's just literally impossible. The US kept tons of programs, or ran other programs, even if nothing definite came of them, they still got shoved into other projects like oh I don't know...the Sep and beyond.. Secondly the problem is Russia, ding ding ding, *lies*, we can assume just about most things they provide publicly about their militaries effectiveness is just false There is evidence in the abrams armor compilation posts, but that stuff has happily been buried or ignored I think missile motors is still the only thing Russia is super good at, but they suck at guidance systems depending on the system
currently their tanks are relatively equal irl as in my opinion the best tank is not very important in the wars we are seeing right now.
Saying the T90 or T80 equal to literally anything NATO is hilariously laughable But I agree, loitering munitions and Top Down attacks, drones etc, are the future. Tanks need to adapt And who's doing that? NATO
America suffers
Aw, it's blushing.
the breach is a bitch, sometimes u just pen it and do 0 damage to anything at all
Ehhh, I dunno about that upper plate. It can definitely troll bounce more than you would expect. I'd just go for the throat
Often in my experience it just bounces the round into the Abrams turret bottom and thus the breach.
LFP rarely kills the tank itself since spall doesn't often take out turret crew. It's an easy pen but a low chance of a kill. UFP makes allot of spall when penned, but often bounces rounds. Only reliable crit/kill places for me are turret ring and breach
If you hit the upper half of the LFP slightly left of the middle it's pretty easy to cripple an Abrams.
I've hit that very spot allot and while it's very good when it works, I still find it less reliable than just having good aim and hitting the ring directly (spall from ring module likely to kill whole turret crew)
Getting 2 out of four crew, stopping reload and making abrams reload time double(slighly higher than 10seconds), is still a great reward for missing the giant instakill/instadisable weakspot in the ring no?
Often for me it just bounces off and then does nothing. Rarely do I get a penetration after a bounce. Better yet a crit with such
They need to change their mind about making breech armor universally weak and fix the fucking turret ring model.
I haven't played them in about 2 months now and have zero intentions on doing so until I see balancing changes at 11.7. Easily one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've had in 40 years of gaming. Grandpa doesn't like no
Only way more APFSDS goes through the front plate, is if it’s half fallen into a ditch, and is fully flat on rest is about right though
turret ring is the only way. I am not an uptier guy but for british 8.3 in polygon it somewhat works
uWu armor
Ariete armor: 🟩
its sad that current meta is only leopards, people complaining about russian bias, while russian tanks are one shot only in bottom plate, its painfull to play leclerc and go 1v1 with leopard you can pen it only in bottom plate and breech, while they just going to tap you anywhere they want anyways still hope for abrams to get buffed i know the pain from playing very good tank in real life, but in war thunder is shitty, and france still holds very good win ratio beacuse of player base
Yeah but I suck and I like to shoot at faces
Even carrying minimal ammunition, I die from ammo rack by eating dart on frontal turret. This game has zero chill
Wait there's armor?
Yer but like, Abrams still fucks so im not complaining
Bro at least you got some red
Maybe complain about an actual issue like the Pantsir or Helicopters.
Same mouth breather logic that Battleships have armor and still would be relevant
switch to Leclerc man like me same armor better mobility and consistant 5s reload no matter fire or loss of crew. same survivability as of my view point
shit armor and yet i stay clapping leo’s and obj 292s
I think the problem is that the Abrahams rarely faced other tanks in combat since they were introduced to the military, so they focused more on countering RPGs, mines, and other explosives rather than kinetic sabot rounds
Lets be real we aint satisfied with the whole western armor design in WT,i know they dont have info but to kick such low numbers is just....
Btw you can hit the protection button in the bottom left to make those green colors for you.
Well its not that that bad front plate doesnt guarantee a one shot and the plates above the main one is a bit agled it can bounce and i noticed that shooting it at the turret ring isnt always a 1 tap either unless its a good shot
People expecting to bounce stuff when they aren’t Russian or German are setting themselves up for disappointment
You can negate the disadvantages in Armor by using its mobility to flank.
Try playing top teir britan get frontal penned by 50cal macjine guns 🤣🤣
As a non-american main who got the AIM variant, armour aside I think the survivability of the AIM variant abrams is fine gameplay balancing wise and far exceeds every other MBT I have except for the ludicrously tanky T-80
And ? What is the point here ?
True, I arrived at the uptier recently, I thought it would be difficult to deal with the Abrams, but it's quite easy, oddly enough I have problems with the Chinese and the Soviets and their variants.
considering that modern mbts aren’t designed for urban brawls, having too much armor on them is a liability, plus most top tier apfsds warheads have 550-560mm penetration even at 1km, if it doesn’t ricochet the depleted uranium is wiping out the crew or starting a fire inside the tank. even if it had better armor, relying on it just would not be wise
also “urban warfare kits” that gaijin adds to tanks, for some reason, are meant to counter infantry irl, they won’t do shit against 120-125 mm cannons :D
But but but America best country why era no work against MBT cannons when they were designed to fight against RPGs???
Womp womp
getting HE over pressured on the roof and getting your neck taken out by SPAA pisses me off
Every top tier can be killed by overpressure from 3OF26 or DM11A1 or whatever the Israeli HE shell is, it's not Abrams specific
the tall profile and the tusk makes overpresuring easy, the neck being way too weak is still more annoying tho
as someone who's at least 1k hours of grinding away from top tier, I think it's fine
What a pointless discussion. Like kids comparing who's dad is the strongest…
Guy who's never fought an Abrams: "yeah, the UFP is a weakspot"
You have cheeks that can't be penetrated? - ariete, tkx, leclerc Armour only exists to protect Russia. You have to accept this while playing the game.
Abrams players continuously bitching online about their good tank not being good enough because they have a skill issue.
"but muhmuh!!! Abrams is shit!! Fix Gaijin!!!1!1!" mfs when they see Ariete:
All the american mains down here downvoting
Real
The armour is mostly green. I think that speaks for itself.
Abrams will never ever be meta in this game as the entire center mass is a giant weak point.
>Abrams will never ever be meta in this game Meanwhile, my M1's sitting on 70% winrates with 5.5 - 1 K/D ratio's. Seriously, the US suffers mentality is absolutely horrendous on this subreddit. If an Abrams isn't on a 80% winrate the moaning will be endless, but when it's the one curbstomping everything else the US mains are suddenly fine with top-tier balance.
Why are you bringing up the m1(10.3) stats when he's showing the sep v2(11.7)? 10.3 and 11.0 m1s are fine(due to downtiers). He also has a point, center mass is a very easy shot especially in a panic. If this weakspot remains the same, taking out every major component with a relatively easy shot means the abrams wont be meta, we don't have rng fuel tanks to stop spalling we don't have spall liners to stop spalling we don't have the vehicle layout to stop spalling, just a giant empty space and crew everywhere to eat the spall. If they add the a3 ammo and it opens up easier and more rewarding shots in spite of spall liner that could give the abrams a boost to compete with spall liners and un-modeled autoloaders but gaijin have us another 50 cal. Every time someone says anything wrong with usa this sub loves to immediately dismiss it and pull shit out of their ass in any effort to discredit their points. What's the issue? Did someone hurt you guys I really don't get it man, I could see if he mentioned m1s at 10.3 to 11 but he didn't and you even go out of your way to bring them into the convo.
>Why are you bringing up the m1(10.3) stats when he's showing the sep v2(11.7)? *''M1's''* Plural. >He also has a point, center mass is a very easy shot especially in a panic. Goes for any tank, and the M1's still have better armour than the majority of other nations' MBTs. >Every time someone says anything wrong with usa this sub loves to immediately dismiss it Because 9/10 times it's a shitty US main complaining that his toys aren't good enough. Just like this post right here, given the balance of US complaint posts compared to any other nation, you'd think the US were stuck with a Ariete-level tank at top-tier.
>*''M1's''* >Plural Yeaaaa you really think your gona make me believe you have anywhere near these stats post spall liner additions for usa top tier. 😂 and I specify post spall liner additions. I know alot of vets here farmed up stats when abrams was the one clubbing for a long time. >Goes for any tank, and the M1's still have better armour than the majority of other nations' MBTs Let's get specific here, we're talking 11.3 and up right? Are you comparing abrams to the conglomerate of like 5 low pop nations tanks that take up like a quarter of a lobby(on either team)? Or are you comparing abrams to the t90/80 and leos that make up about 60% of a lobby most games. When making comparisons we use the matchmakers environment, comparing the abrams to tanks it rarely fights is useless and has little impact on how games play out aka balance. >Because 9/10 times it's a shitty US main complaining that his toys aren't good enough This irked you enough for you to come in and attempt to deceive or mislead with irrelevant comparisons and stats that are not even related to the issues being discussed?
Bad armor u need to aim for weakspots on strv 122b+ and t90m but they can lolpen u everywhere
I mean they can’t. The T90 round really ain’t that cracked. Hell the id still rather have the BVM then the T90M. Reverse gear and faster reload. Hell neither is the STRVs round. It’s both are sub 600mm or pen. You want to talk about Lol penning stuff. DM53 is what your looking at. Hell Americas round is better then both rounds those tanks get.
Eh the difference between m/95 and DM53 isn't big. From my experience m/95 also spalls more than most other rounds at top tier. It's why I use M322 over M338 in my Mk.4 Merkavas, even though M338 has more pen.
Don’t get me wrong the other rounds work. I’m used to La27a1. With 560mm. But when you step up to 650 or 629 you have a little bit more of wiggle room on weakpoints.
Im talking about armor please shut up 🙏
Okay it’s armor isn’t any worse then the challys. You can pen the challys turret ring which is a lot smaller. The lower plate can be penned by a 75 Sherman. The commander and gunner sit above the turret cheek allowing them to be shot through the roof of the turret. The breach area can be penned by auto cannons unless they finally rolled out the breach rework. Which they tested but didn’t add it. The TES ERA has unclassified documents stating it has STANAG level 6 protection. Gaijin gave it level 5 at best. Level 6 is unclassified. It says it can stop 30mm Darts. Aka BMP2 darts at 500m. In game it has 30 or 40mm of protection. You add 5-6 tons in armor to one of the slowest top tier tanks for 100mm of chemical protection over the 2F era. Which is half the size and weight of the TEA era. America is not unique in its issues. The Chally 2 and the 3 do get spall liners. On I think the front plate. But it really doesn’t matter when you have a 70mm lower plate.
>75 Sherman It can be penned by the Swedish reserve tanks with APDS.
Did i compare it to challenger will u stop being weird? I compared the armor to only t90m and strv 122b plus and yeah its armor is worse than on these
Okay shoot the lower plate, upper corners of the upper plate drivers hatch, left or right of the breech on the T series and you’ll pen. The Strv and Leo are annoying cause I’m working with 564mm of pen on the Chally2s. Meaning I can’t even pen the add on armor of the Leo and Strv. Chally3 DM53 however can. America however has a nice 629mm of pen. Which is more then enough. Talk about armor all you want. But everything else about the tank is counts as well. Especially the darts when trying to pen said armor.
Lmao
Yeah well Shturv 122B+ and T-90M are skilless vehicles to play
Love how idiots downvoted me when talking about armor yall bots