The Abrams tanks are pretty useless

[Arceal]

I think every single nation in the game (except the UK) has better 10.0+ MBT's. These Abrams are pretty terrible. They have mediocre fire power and they are unbelievably easy to 1 shot or completely disable in 1 shot.

If a round pens, you're turret ring and breach are gone basically no matter where you are hit in the front. The turret cheeks provide next to no protection against pretty much every other nations cannons (including the M1A2). There is also this massive kill zone on the mantlet, below the mantlet and on the turret ring. The hull has next to no protection as well.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. "The Abrams is fast!" Which it is, but so is the Leopards, T80U and Type 90. The Abrams for some reason had the top speed nerfed as well as it's reverse speed.

I am having a hard time understanding why this tank has been nerfed so heavily despite having an overall low win delta.

[KatherineFtw]

Well, the M1 Abrams is the oldest currently used MBT. While it has receved some modifications over the years, it hasn't been outright replaced like every other contries.

[Arceal]

Originally posted by KatherineFtw:

Well, the M1 Abrams is the oldest currently used MBT. While it has receved some modifications over the years, it hasn't been outright replaced like every other contries.

It's age doesn't play any factor in performance. The US has the largest military budget globally, there is a reason they haven't replaced it and don't plan to for another 30 years.

[Smetrix]

Originally posted by Arceal:

Originally posted by KatherineFtw:

Well, the M1 Abrams is the oldest currently used MBT. While it has receved some modifications over the years, it hasn't been outright replaced like every other contries.

It's age doesn't play any factor in performance. The US has the largest military budget globally, there is a reason they haven't replaced it and don't plan to for another 30 years.

The US having the largest military complex doesn’t make the Abrams any more survivable. It’s not an invincible killing machine, it does have a very high crew survivability rate, which is what it’s best known for. Obviously that isn’t modeled in game though.

[Arceal]

Originally posted by Smetrix:

Originally posted by Arceal:

It's age doesn't play any factor in performance. The US has the largest military budget globally, there is a reason they haven't replaced it and don't plan to for another 30 years.

The US having the largest military complex doesn’t make the Abrams any more survivable. It’s not an invincible killing machine, it does have a very high crew survivability rate, which is what it’s best known for. Obviously that isn’t modeled in game though.

I don't understand why it's so heavily nerfed in game though. Everything from the gun, to the speed, to the armor was nerfed.

Real life speaking, it has seen a LOT of combat. And not 1 has ever been lost in combat.

[NapoleonBornToParty]

Originally posted by Arceal:

Real life speaking, it has seen a LOT of combat. And not 1 has ever been lost in combat.

because in theory, if gaijin buff the abrams like their real life counterpart, then they'll buff the russian and german tanks even further (yes abrams had more suckses than any other tanks, but in THEORY every other tanks are nerfed in game) and that'll make crybabies cry even more

[Lazar]

Originally posted by Arceal:

Originally posted by Smetrix:

The US having the largest military complex doesn’t make the Abrams any more survivable. It’s not an invincible killing machine, it does have a very high crew survivability rate, which is what it’s best known for. Obviously that isn’t modeled in game though.

I don't understand why it's so heavily nerfed in game though. Everything from the gun, to the speed, to the armor was nerfed.

Real life speaking, it has seen a LOT of combat. And not 1 has ever been lost in combat.

And you know why that is? They never faced Other MBT's of the same tech level. Like they do in game. Put them against Topline Russian, German , Uk tanks and be sure some of them are going down.

Lets be clear, the M1 series of tanks is superb, and the American tankers are themselves incredibly professional and well-trained. But the Abrams has only fought poor and basic export variants of Soviet tanks manned by poor crews.

[Arceal]

Originally posted by Gustavolio:

Originally posted by Arceal:

I don't understand why it's so heavily nerfed in game though. Everything from the gun, to the speed, to the armor was nerfed.

Real life speaking, it has seen a LOT of combat. And not 1 has ever been lost in combat.

Nit picking - But this is wrong.

M1 Abrams have indeed been knocked out in combat before (and the Saudi's are still currently having them knocked out by Insurgents) - They havent suffered tank-to-tank losses per-say, But they've also not really faced anything more modern than a T-72.

This is sort of right. You're talking about the monkey models that are basically knocked down Abrams with only spaced armor so poorer countries can purchase them.

[Arceal]

Originally posted by Gustavolio:

Originally posted by Arceal:

This is sort of right. You're talking about the monkey models that are basically knocked down Abrams with only spaced armor so poorer countries can purchase them.

Nope. Abrams were also knocked out during the invasion of Iraq. The Abrams has definitely seen losses in combat.

You're like arguing with a redditor.

You must be talking about the Gulf War then? 9 total Abrams tanks were destroyed. (Actual American made tanks.) 7 were destroyed to friendly fire, and 2 were destroyed to prevent the enemy from getting their hands on them. Here is a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=Of%20the%20nine%20Abrams%20tanks,effect%20on%20their%20operational%20readiness.

I won't be replying to you again if you can't link atleast 1 source to your claims.


All this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ aside, the point of this thread is not to start a ♥♥♥♥ measuring contest with random countries, the point of it is to discuss how unneeded the nerfs are to the Abrams -in game-

[Pappy]

The Abrams is very NERF'ED in all regards... In addition; it is forced to fight on battle field maps that it would never fight in..

They are too dang small so you are forced to go head to head in a street brawl that any sane Armor Commander would by pass and send B-52 strikes against and artillery barrages until the cities are leveled ...

I parked my Abrams for a long time because of this, and it looks as though I will do it again until some maps show up were a stand off range can be used to it's advantage ...

Con; The updates to the ammunition is a plus but the street brawls have gotta end...

Now fix the Phantom's missiles because they are useless, both the AIM- 9E and the J models...

[Jaes]

One of the primary issues with Abrams is how shells are modeled in the game. You know that big gap that exposes its turret ring to practically anything?

That gap is supposed to be act as a false shot trap. Unless the round fired there touches nothing, they're supposed to essentially break apart and lose a lot of their Kinetic Energy in the process. Right now, rounds just bounce around and slide into the crew compartment with no issue.

War Thunder doesn't really have a system that produces shell breaking effects, but if Gaijin ever decides to add it, it would allow the Abrams to perform much better than it currently does.

[Arceal]

Originally posted by Pappy:

The Abrams is very NERF'ED in all regards... In addition; it is forced to fight on battle field maps that it would never fight in..

They are too dang small so you are forced to go head to head in a street brawl that any sane Armor Commander would by pass and send B-52 strikes against and artillery barrages until the cities are leveled ...

I parked my Abrams for a long time because of this, and it looks as though I will do it again until some maps show up were a stand off range can be used to it's advantage ...

Con; The updates to the ammunition is a plus but the street brawls have gotta end...

Now fix the Phantom's missiles because they are useless, both the AIM- 9E and the J models...

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to nerf it in it's current state. It's basically useless in comparison to the other modern MBT's.

Originally posted by Jaes:

One of the primary issues with Abrams is how shells are modeled in the game. You know that big gap that exposes its turret ring to practically anything?

That gap is supposed to be act as a false shot trap. Unless the round fired there touches nothing, they're supposed to essentially break apart and lose a lot of their Kinetic Energy in the process. Right now, rounds just bounce around and slide into the crew compartment with no issue.

War Thunder doesn't really have a system that produces shell breaking effects, but if Gaijin ever decides to add it, it would allow the Abrams to perform much better than it currently does.

Exactly. Basically everything in the front is a weak spot. That turret ring and breach are by far the easiest to destroy out of any tank I have ever played.

[Arceal]

Thinking more about what Jaes said. War Thunder could easily implement a system like this. Like they did with their volumetric shells. Right now however, war thunder has 3 different reactions that can happen. First being full penetration with spalling. The second being a full ricochet (losing a very small amount of power with each ricochet). The third being a complete shot disintegration.

So I don't think it would be too complicated to add a shot breaking mechanic to the ricochet mechanic.

[SuperbPledget]

Originally posted by Arceal:

Thinking more about what Jaes said. War Thunder could easily implement a system like this. Like they did with their volumetric shells. Right now however, war thunder has 3 different reactions that can happen. First being full penetration with spalling. The second being a full ricochet (losing a very small amount of power with each ricochet). The third being a complete shot disintegration.

So I don't think it would be too complicated to add a shot breaking mechanic to the ricochet mechanic.

some 3 months ago they have tested critical shatters for a week.
The abrams' hull was quite tanky, and the T-80/72s and challenger's turret roof was not a weakspot for the most part.
It was an enjoyable week for top tier.

[jaxjace]

Originally posted by Smetrix:

Originally posted by Arceal:

It's age doesn't play any factor in performance. The US has the largest military budget globally, there is a reason they haven't replaced it and don't plan to for another 30 years.

The US having the largest military complex doesn’t make the Abrams any more survivable. It’s not an invincible killing machine, it does have a very high crew survivability rate, which is what it’s best known for. Obviously that isn’t modeled in game though.

It used to be. I remember when it dropped, it was nigh unkillable, the blowout compartments protecting the crew were too good.

[Colors]

Originally posted by Arceal:

I think every single nation in the game (except the UK) has better 10.0+ MBT's. These Abrams are pretty terrible. They have mediocre fire power and they are unbelievably easy to 1 shot or completely disable in 1 shot.

If a round pens, you're turret ring and breach are gone basically no matter where you are hit in the front. The turret cheeks provide next to no protection against pretty much every other nations cannons (including the M1A2). There is also this massive kill zone on the mantlet, below the mantlet and on the turret ring. The hull has next to no protection as well.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. "The Abrams is fast!" Which it is, but so is the Leopards, T80U and Type 90. The Abrams for some reason had the top speed nerfed as well as it's reverse speed.

I am having a hard time understanding why this tank has been nerfed so heavily despite having an overall low win delta.

what do you propose then? when irl abrams isnt any better... all I care is to give M1A2 better res for thermals
and maybe add naother abrams with similar armor as M1A2 has