Jump to content


Why not M1 Abrams?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

cheasesteak #41 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:30 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14784 battles
  • 2,477
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

View Postminitel_NA, on 19 March 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

 

  1. It might not be the case today anymore, but Russian tanks were more successful than any counterparts. The modern tank is based on the meta that the T34 imposed. The equivalent M4 produced no descent. Isn't that something to be proud of ? Most tank ever produced. Winner of WW2 and defender of the mother land.

I'd question that.  It was clearly an important tank for the Soviet war effort, but it was a bit of an evolutionary dead end.

 

T-34 was rugged, well armored for its time, and easy to build.  It wasn't really the precursor to modern tanks.  Christie suspension was already obsolete during WW 2, the original 2 man turrets (which most T-34s used) was certainly not the modern trend. Modern ammunition reduces the benefit of armor angling (another key component of the T-34's success). 


Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed

and

​Filthy Gold Spamming Seal Clubber


etword #42 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:39 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostV1n2002, on 19 March 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

The XM1 Abram's only had like 400 mm of front armor...and it had a 105 mm just like the Leo 1 and the M48/M60. It would be easy to knock an Abram's around, and they could move around at 35 mph. I think an Abram's would be a a good tier 10 heavy, but it would need a slow rpm and high chance of engine fire....it would be hard to balance 

Thank you for your feedback it is well appreciated



etword #43 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:40 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postjkwon126, on 19 March 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

I don't know how I end up in this thread but clicking my heels is not working...

Lol click a little harder



etword #44 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:41 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postsapperwes, on 19 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind this but it would need to be like a teir 20 tank. If WG expanded past teir ten and started getting into modern tanks would that be bad?


I'm not really hung up on the ww2 feel but I do agree to keeping it to real tanks.


 

Thank you for your feedback and that would not be a bad idea bringing in new work tanks and higher tiers



etword #45 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:47 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postminitel_NA, on 19 March 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

  1. Learn punctuation.
  2. It might not be the case today anymore, but Russian tanks were more successful than any counterparts. The modern tank is based on the meta that the T34 imposed. The equivalent M4 produced no descent. Isn't that something to be proud of ? Most tank ever produced. Winner of WW2 and defender of the mother land. 
  3. Have you been watching non American movies lately ? Tip : Americans don't win in the end. Which makes that...
 why 99.99% of American movies, American wins in the end ? russian is the same.
  4. overall I do think there is a bias in the game. It has to do with most players being Russian, and one nation needs to be "easy to play by noobs". In that look, you might consider Russian tanks as "tanks for introduction to blitz" and the US tanks as "tanks for experts." When they came, German lights were immensely OP.  Eventually every  line gets buffed and nerfed once in a while. 
  5. the Russian server is immense. The NA server is small. Consider which tanks should be easy to play ?
  6. WW2 period is considered the classic of battle tanks. You could say WW1 is prehistoric, as no tank was designed to face another tank, and post Cold War is post -modern, as tanks don't face each other anymore, they either annihilate each other miles and miles away, before even seeing each other, by computers interface,  or by drones or missiles or assymetrical warfare thingies.
  7. there are plenty of games in the AppStore with Abrams tanks in there. Are they good game ? No. I don't care what tanks are in there or even if it is mushrooms. This game is fun. This game is hard. I want to become good,  I don't care which tank I drive, I want to learn driving it and improving on that tank. Eventually I like each tank and I want them one by one. 
  8. I forgot what.
  9. for all these reasons, the big brawls in their classical definitions and epic ways have to remain pre electronics area. Which some player and WG itself defines as WW2 and which in fact starts in the 30s and stops at tanks conceived for the Cold War.
  10. WG decided to add fantasy tanks to blitz and keep the PC game pure. They decided that fantasy is fine, as long as it doesn't break the paradigm of full face to face brawl, in the classic way of tank to tank battle. But aren't most tanks presented some fantasy of sorts ? Maus was a fantasy tank, and even if they built part of it. It was impractical and useless and they didn't stand a chance of making them. About the prototype tanks, the blue print tanks or the full creation tanks like the Japanese heavies. Well fantasy. Even tanks who were built and equipped but never saw war action. Sent that some fantasy ?
  11. but isn't the entire game an arcade fantasy ? Aren't you sitting on your coach or on the toilets or are you sitting in the hull of a M48 right now maybe, sleep deprived for weeks  ?

 

I hope I replied to all your concerns. Especially why no Abrams.

Thank you very much you are correct on a lot of these points that you had made. Forgive my punctuation English was not my top subject but history was and still is. I love this game there's a lot of fun in it I do have a lot of Russian tanks and yes Russia made a big line of Tanks during World War II along with the Germans they are both the forefathers of tanking today. The t 43 was the most amazing tank Russia came out with during World War II it could actually fire on the move not with great accuracy but it could fire on the Move most tanks in World War II could not fire on the move they were stationary because it was so inaccurate and they could only carry so many rounds. Thank you for the feedback it is well appreciated. I was just wondering I can see now why the electronic ever definitely changed everything now that Russia has come out with it's use series of tanks in the real world maybe they'll introduce all these new tanks it would be something have a good day



etword #46 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:49 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015
Voice activating texting messed up a lot of what I was trying to say but it's okay you got my point I don't have the patience to type everything in so I use voice activated texting sometimes it puts in words I don't wanted to say I know it's kind of lazy LOL

minitel_NA #47 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:45 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 1,269
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

I'd question that.  It was clearly an important tank for the Soviet war effort, but it was a bit of an evolutionary dead end.

 

T-34 was rugged, well armored for its time, and easy to build.  It wasn't really the precursor to modern tanks.  Christie suspension was already obsolete during WW 2, the original 2 man turrets (which most T-34s used) was certainly not the modern trend. Modern ammunition reduces the benefit of armor angling (another key component of the T-34's success). 

 

research "main battle tank".

 

 

T-34 wasn't only important for the soviet war effort. It saved Russia pretty much on its own, and by doing this, it forced Germany into a wrestle and sunk all of Germany's effort into the east front.  Having all of Germany's forces in the east is what allowed the western allies to land. T34 arrived first to Berlin. Taking a bit of a shortcut we can say it bent and downed the nazis and pretty much saved Europe from German occupation. I'm not going to comment on hilter decision to launch two fronts or on soviet occupation of Eastern Europe since it's not related to tanks.

 

Those are all good reasons why Russians are more tank nuts than anyone else around and why they make such good tank videogames as well.

 

T-34 was the first medium tank to prove the heavies were obsolete.

it could do anything a KV1 could do, but faster and cheaper.

The is a straight relationship between each generation :

T-34 —> T-43 —> T-44 —> T-54 —> T-64 —> T-72 —> T90

T-90 which is still fielded today.

 

Now compare this with a panther or a M4.

What kind of descent did they have ?

What kind of influence on later designs ?

It is even said that the panther itself was Germany trying to learn from their encounter with the T34. 

 

The only other tank with a remarkable descent was the British Cromwell which led to the successful centurion. None of these having any battlefield achievement even remotely comparable to the T-34


Edited by minitel_NA, 20 March 2017 - 05:17 PM.

Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


1966MustangFastBack #48 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:50 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7935 battles
  • 905
  • [HEATR]
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013
Tier 11

 

1966 Fastback 427 FE swap, 2003 R53 Mini JCW


MarBearCat #49 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:52 PM

    Pennsylvania's Favorite Cat!

  • Players
  • 19288 battles
  • 6,766
  • [SDWA]
  • Member since:
    11-13-2015

I'm always open to having a brand new

heavy tank to stink the joint up with!

 

Bring on the Abrams!



cheasesteak #50 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:54 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14784 battles
  • 2,477
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

Main Battle Tank - Probably give the nod to the British - Centurion line.  Also, M4 is closer to modern MBT than T-34 (3 man turret, some had gyrostabilized gun).  

 

Though I may be alone in this, I think the Panther is closer to modern MBT than T-34.  Fast, moderate armor, very capable gun, torsion bar suspension, 3 man turret.  Other features too, but that is off the top of my head. 


Edited by cheasesteak, 20 March 2017 - 04:54 PM.

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed

and

​Filthy Gold Spamming Seal Clubber


Enzo_Gorlami #51 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:07 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12614 battles
  • 1,190
  • [BELLS]
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Post1966MustangFastBack, on 20 March 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Tier 11

 



minitel_NA #52 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:20 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 1,269
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Main Battle Tank - Probably give the nod to the British - Centurion line.  Also, M4 is closer to modern MBT than T-34 (3 man turret, some had gyrostabilized gun).  

 

Though I may be alone in this, I think the Panther is closer to modern MBT than T-34.  Fast, moderate armor, very capable gun, torsion bar suspension, 3 man turret.  Other features too, but that is off the top of my head. 

 

 

 

 

sorry I just finished editing my earlier post, and saw you replied already by now, lol.

I always write in several pass. Different style from OP voice to text and no second read.

yeah centurion on is the first credited MBT.

 

Well russian didn't even built baskets inside the turret or even equiped with radio. Some drove off to the battlefield without ammo during Barbarossa. 

They are probably a bit rough-edged people, for all I know. But we are talking about conception, not implementation.


Edited by minitel_NA, 20 March 2017 - 05:23 PM.

Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


etword #53 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:03 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postsapperwes, on 19 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind this but it would need to be like a teir 20 tank. If WG expanded past teir ten and started getting into modern tanks would that be bad?


I'm not really hung up on the ww2 feel but I do agree to keeping it to real tanks.


 

That is a great idea for them lift up the tears possibly tier 15 and bring in more tanks



etword #54 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:04 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Posttcamp48, on 19 March 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

 

This. There's a certain era cut-off.

I'm just wondering thank you for the feedback



etword #55 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postminitel_NA, on 20 March 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

 

 

 

sorry I just finished editing my earlier post, and saw you replied already by now, lol.

I always write in several pass. Different style from OP voice to text and no second read.

yeah centurion on is the first credited MBT.

 

Well russian didn't even built baskets inside the turret or even equiped with radio. Some drove off to the battlefield without ammo during Barbarossa. 

They are probably a bit rough-edged people, for all I know. But we are talking about conception, not implementation.

 interesting I just learned something thank you for the feedback



etword #56 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:08 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

I'd question that.  It was clearly an important tank for the Soviet war effort, but it was a bit of an evolutionary dead end.

 

T-34 was rugged, well armored for its time, and easy to build.  It wasn't really the precursor to modern tanks.  Christie suspension was already obsolete during WW 2, the original 2 man turrets (which most T-34s used) was certainly not the modern trend. Modern ammunition reduces the benefit of armor angling (another key component of the T-34's success). 

Another interesting fact thank you



etword #57 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:11 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postminitel_NA, on 20 March 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

research "main battle tank".

 

 

T-34 wasn't only important for the soviet war effort. It saved Russia pretty much on its own, and by doing this, it forced Germany into a wrestle and sunk all of Germany's effort into the east front.  Having all of Germany's forces in the east is what allowed the western allies to land. T34 arrived first to Berlin. Taking a bit of a shortcut we can say it bent and downed the nazis and pretty much saved Europe from German occupation. I'm not going to comment on hilter decision to launch two fronts or on soviet occupation of Eastern Europe since it's not related to tanks.

 

Those are all good reasons why Russians are more tank nuts than anyone else around and why they make such good tank videogames as well.

 

T-34 was the first medium tank to prove the heavies were obsolete.

it could do anything a KV1 could do, but faster and cheaper.

The is a straight relationship between each generation :

T-34 —> T-43 —> T-44 —> T-54 —> T-64 —> T-72 —> T90

T-90 which is still fielded today.

 

Now compare this with a panther or a M4.

What kind of descent did they have ?

What kind of influence on later designs ?

It is even said that the panther itself was Germany trying to learn from their encounter with the T34. 

 

The only other tank with a remarkable descent was the British Cromwell which led to the successful centurion. None of these having any battlefield achievement even remotely comparable to the T-34

I agree with what you're saying the Germans and the Soviets are the forefathers of tanking that I have mentioned before they have evolutionized the main battle tank and  Warfare thank you for your comment it is well appreciated



etword #58 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:12 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostMarBearCat, on 20 March 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

I'm always open to having a brand new

heavy tank to stink the joint up with!

 

Bring on the Abrams!

Well said . Here here



etword #59 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Main Battle Tank - Probably give the nod to the British - Centurion line.  Also, M4 is closer to modern MBT than T-34 (3 man turret, some had gyrostabilized gun).  

 

Though I may be alone in this, I think the Panther is closer to modern MBT than T-34.  Fast, moderate armor, very capable gun, torsion bar suspension, 3 man turret.  Other features too, but that is off the top of my head. 

Wow that's pretty good information for the top of your head I can only imagine what's in the rest of your brain thank you



etword #60 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:17 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21407 battles
  • 142
  • [SKL-O]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostEnzo_Gorlami, on 20 March 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

 

Lol thank you that was quite entertaining and I enjoyed the laugh that was definitely well appreciated






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users