Jump to content


Why not M1 Abrams?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

cheasesteak #61 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:25 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16543 battles
  • 3,195
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

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

 

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

T-90 which is still fielded today.

 

 

This is the part I disagree with.  T-43 was a completely new design that looked like a T-34, but shared little in actual mechanicals.  It also was really more of a MBT predecessor than the T-34 since it was intended to replace BOTH the T-34 and KV-1.  It was never fielded because the T-34/85 was generally superior as a medium tank.  The T-34/85 never superseded heavy tanks (IS and later model KVs), but was used with them.  Soviets didn't buy into the MBT concept until MUCH later. [EDITED - I looked it up, and the T-43 did share a bunch of parts with the T-34, but had new engine, suspension and turret.  Still, it was really a prototype].

 

Also, T-44 was a very, very different design from either T-34 or T-44.  Completely new configuration in hull design and turret placement.  Much stronger case that this tank was the Soviets first MBT (even if it wasn't used).


Edited by cheasesteak, 20 March 2017 - 06:50 PM.

 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


ZoneZ72 #62 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10518 battles
  • 248
  • [-TK]
  • Member since:
    12-22-2016
well if you play wot, it is coming soon in the form of and independent tier: tier 11. Before 2020. But who knows when tier 11 will come to blitz. maybe till 2030 :sceptic:

Edited by ZoneZ72, 20 March 2017 - 06:28 PM.


cheasesteak #63 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:31 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16543 battles
  • 3,195
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

On the M4, it has probably as good a claim to the MBT linage as the T-34.  It was used by the US as a MBT before the concept really existed.  US didn't have a true heavy during the war, and the M4 was the jack of all trades that characterizes the MBT.

 

Also, T20 was derived from M4.  The T20 was the base that ultimately led to the M26, then M46/7/8 then M60.  The changes from M4 to T20 (same engine, suspension, gun) might be less significant than the changes from T-34 to T-43. 

 


 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


minitel_NA #64 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 2,117
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

This is the part I disagree with.  T-43 was a completely new design that looked like a T-34, but shared little in actual mechanicals.  It also was really more of a MBT predecessor than the T-34 since it was intended to replace BOTH the T-34 and KV-1.  It was never fielded because the T-34/85 was generally superior as a medium tank.  The T-34/85 never superseded heavy tanks (IS and later model KVs), but was used with them.  Soviets didn't buy into the MBT concept until MUCH later. [EDITED - I looked it up, and the T-43 did share a bunch of parts with the T-34, but had new engine, suspension and turret.  Still, it was really a prototype].

 

Also, T-44 was a very, very different design from either T-34 or T-44.  Completely new configuration in hull design and turret placement.  Much stronger case that this tank was the Soviets first MBT (even if it wasn't used).

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

On the M4, it has probably as good a claim to the MBT linage as the T-34.  It was used by the US as a MBT before the concept really existed.  US didn't have a true heavy during the war, and the M4 was the jack of all trades that characterizes the MBT.

 

Also, T20 was derived from M4.  The T20 was the base that ultimately led to the M26, then M46/7/8 then M60.  The changes from M4 to T20 (same engine, suspension, gun) might be less significant than the changes from T-34 to T-43. 

 

 

Interesting to read, though we disagree. I'm not even claiming that I am right over you, I'm just developing my point of view and curious to read yours.

 

In the mid/late thirties, A-32 tried to bring solution to T26-46 shortcomings. most of these ideas would come in the T-34.

T-34 was conceived before WW2 and was in production in 1940, as a medium tank, before Russia was even in war.

 

When war occurred, T-34-85 showed that it was sufficient to fulfill any role. This is the very definition of the main battle tank.

the success of the T-34 pushed to develop the T43, then 44, 54, etc...

The success also proved the ill fat of the heavy programs, as too slow, expensive and cumbersome.

meanwhile  the KV and IS programs were also continued (IS-2,3,...7,8) probably because they had political support in Moscow but eventually reason prevailed, and all were discarded.

 

On the battlefield it also impressed the German who designed their own panthers based on the T-34 benchmark. IMO the best tank of the war was the panther, and by far. Tiger and the subsequent King TIGER and Maus, e100 were just increasingly megalomaniac, and less and less relevant to the war situation.

 

cromwell-centurion also proved a similar thing, but many years after the T34 and the M46 also was a similarly balanced tank, but came way too late in the war. At the time war arupted in Europe, M2 was a thing, the coming M3 still had sponsons instead of a turret, and m4 weren't in production until 1942 

 

the "tank destroyer" doctrine was also a thing in the USarmy, as far removed from the reality as it was, while the tank vs battle that had already occurred In most of Europe. the concept and doctrine of MBT wasn't expressed until after all these tanks, after the war, well into the Cold War. But it was a lesson that those tanks had taught, and T-34 was the first.

 

in my view, the transition from T-34 to T-43 and T44 is much smoother and evolutionary  than the jump from M4 to T20.

 

The entire architecture of M4 was derived from the radial engine (I used rotary engine in a previous post, which proves that I'm saying nonesense at least once in a while). It had many shortcomings in armor, mobility, etc.. And its main asset was the logistics, price tag, and availability. After using a V8 the entire architecture of the vehicle had to be changed. there was nothing carried from the M4 except the turret (which was a good turret IMO).

 

so I would say that the American line of medium / MBT really started at the T20. Previous programs M2,3,4 were just leaps forward. Due to both time of studying and internal friction inside the US army, M46 didn't come until extremely late in the war, to be compared with T-34 which was fielded before the war. 

 

T-34 could fulfill any role. It was a medium, but it defined the MBT genre that prevailed later. The crude technology, finish, equipment, used in the T-34 IMO only illustrate the typical lack of care and means that WG Soviet put in the completion of their programs. it does not take away the merits of the original idea.

 

 

 

I write ite lengthy and confusing things, which proves that I'm getting tired and the movie is boring... Time to do something else :) 


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

 


minitel_NA #65 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:45 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 2,117
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

On the M4, it has probably as good a claim to the MBT linage as the T-34.  It was used by the US as a MBT before the concept really existed.  US didn't have a true heavy during the war, and the M4 was the jack of all trades that characterizes the MBT.

 

Also, T20 was derived from M4.  The T20 was the base that ultimately led to the M26, then M46/7/8 then M60.  The changes from M4 to T20 (same engine, suspension, gun) might be less significant than the changes from T-34 to T-43. 

 

Just read this again.

the first part, I will give it some thought.

its true they used it for all roles, but I think they used it as a jack of all trade because they didn't have anything else, not because it was so good. 

 

The second part... m4 to T20 they changed everything. They only kept the turret, but, you could find M4 with French autoloaders turrets in Egypt in the sixties. Even when very good, the turret and guns shouldn't define a tank because they can be interchanged so easily (what WG is doing to create many premium tanks BTW)


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

 


cheasesteak #66 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:57 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16543 battles
  • 3,195
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

OK,

I'll buy the concept that T-34 was a conceptual forefather of the MBT concept (at least as the USSR viewed MBT). 

 

On the M4 though, the T20 did use HVSS suspension and the same ford V8 as many M4s (M4s used a number of different engines).  Although, on reflection, it might be better viewed as a cousin of the M4, not a descendant. 


 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


cheasesteak #67 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:00 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16543 battles
  • 3,195
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

View Postminitel_NA, on 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

 The crude technology, finish, equipment, used in the T-34 IMO only illustrate the typical lack of care and means that WG Soviet put in the completion of their programs. it does not take away the merits of the original idea.

 

 

:D


 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


CaesarSeizer #68 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:38 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16741 battles
  • 229
  • [DEIMO]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2015

View Postetword, on 19 March 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

I have to be careful how I word this so that I don't get a warning or get some sort of game glitch that I've heard other people have suffered with when they comment the wrong way so I hope I don't offend the gamemakers by saying what I'm about to say. They create all these fantasy tanks like the Dracula that Hellsing the tankenstein  the glacier. And they advertise that these are supposed to be World War II tanks and now they're bringing in the AMX 30 B which it is still in service today along with the leopard yet they will not bring in the American Tank M1 Abrams. Is it me or is it just biased almost every American Tank especially like the t71 it's so weak so vulnerable it's very humiliating to play these tanks where the Russian tanks are far more Superior then the American tanks on this game and now the French line seems to be more Superior .I'm just curious and wondering why this is is it because they don't want American tanks to be superior like the M1 Abrams where it has been proven in battle the AMX 30b was used in the Gulf War along with the leopard they have been used in recent battles past World War II. They advertised this game as a World War II setting of Tanks yet they're bringing all these fantasy tanks and tanks that are still in service like I said earlier I'm just curious and wondering why this is I hope they don't give me a warning for this like they did last time I'm just hoping they don't punish me for saying this because this is a land of freedom speech can someone please clarify this for me it will be well appreciated

 

Whether or not a tank is still in service is irrelevant, because that has much more to do with how much money a country has (along with their need for a tank, etc) than how good a tank actually is. For instance, Paraguay still fields M3 Stuarts, the tier 3 (or tier 4?) American light tanks. By your logic, I should be shouting "M3 Stuart op, pls move to tier 10!", despite the fact that it would be absolutely out of place there. The only thing WG takes into consideration when planning out what tanks they're going to use is how balanced they would be for the tier. The AMX 30 B, (for which no plans have been mentioned to put it into blitz yet, by the way) is well balanced for tier 10, if a little on the weak side. Another example would be the STB-1, which was prototyped in 1971 and holds the title as the most modern tank in blitz. Why can I absolutely demolish STB-1s in my Maus, which was prototyped in 1944/1945? Because the STB-1 is balanced

 

The difference between those tanks and the M1 Abrams is that the M1 completely changed the game of tank design. Prior to the Abrams, tank design was dominated by three factors, namely, mobility, armor, and armament. If you build up one or two of them, the others have to go down. You can't max out all three. The problem with the Abrams is that through new technologies, such as its turbine engine, composite armor, computerized firing control, exceedingly long range, thermal sights, and crew protection, it managed to leapfrog the capabilities of every other tank in the world in every aspect, even tanks that are already too advanced for blitz, such as the T-72. The problem with that in a video game about WW2/Cold War tanks is that it's really, really hard to balance. In order to balance the Abrams for tier 10, you would need to nerf it to the point where it's unrecognizable, ruining the tank for the people who want it in-game and still pissing off the people who don't. WG is not stupid enough to do that, despite their constant attempts to prove me wrong.

 

EDIT: 
"It's very humiliating to play these tanks where the Russian tanks are far more Superior then the American tanks on this game"

 

... Get good, I guess? 
That should be translated to "It's very humiliating to suck at playing American tanks and get wrecked by better players who know how to use the capabilities of their tanks to their advantage, and who happen to be driving Russian tanks at that moment"

 

For instance, I find that the M4 Sherman is a better tank for me than the T-34. Why? Because it fits my playstyle. 

 

The catch here is that Russian tanks are generally just easier to use than the American tanks. Both lines will do very well in the hands of a player who knows what he's doing, and if a newer player keeps working at it, they'll be able to work with the strengths and weaknesses of any tank they get into. If you keep blaming the tank, you'll never learn how to use them right. So my advice would be to get good and come back again when you can do both nations justice.


Edited by CaesarSeizer, 21 March 2017 - 01:53 AM.

 


ruff_n_nuts #69 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:27 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 1748 battles
  • 89
  • [XCEPT]
  • Member since:
    02-10-2017
And the Sherman has an updated gun and is still in service in some countries, play that. Why is everyone always hoping for that tank that will give them an easy 80% wr. It's called the no 4 tier 3. Search no further.

conjay810 #70 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:26 AM

    Meme Machine

  • Players
  • 16196 battles
  • 440
  • [TITAN]
  • Member since:
    08-01-2014
A M1 Abrams would be hilariously overpowered is why. The M1 is faster than a RU 251, and certainly more maneuverable, along with weighing 60 tons and packing a meter or more of effective protection on its frontal arc. In fact, most of the game's biggest TDs would struggle to penetrate the flat side of a Abrams at point blank range. The gun could penetrate 800+mm of armor with laser accuracy, 10 degrees of gun depression and advanced fire control. 

Best Tier 8 Tank Rankings

E100(complete)-JPZE100(complete)-E50M- GUIDE (complete)-T110E5(complete)-M48 Patton(Pershing complete)-T62/OBJ140 (T-44 complete)-IS-7 (complete)-Leopard 1 (on RU 251)

Premiums: Defender, Glacial 112, Type 62, T23E3, Helsing HO, SU-100Y, Shinobi, T2 Light, Tetrarch


BuckGrizzly #71 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:57 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22015 battles
  • 308
  • [KR0N0]
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015

View Postetword, on 19 March 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

I have to be careful how I word this so that I don't get a warning or get some sort of game glitch that I've heard other people have suffered with when they comment the wrong way so I hope I don't offend the gamemakers by saying what I'm about to say. They create all these fantasy tanks like the Dracula that Hellsing the tankenstein  the glacier. And they advertise that these are supposed to be World War II tanks and now they're bringing in the AMX 30 B which it is still in service today along with the leopard yet they will not bring in the American Tank M1 Abrams. Is it me or is it just biased almost every American Tank especially like the t71 it's so weak so vulnerable it's very humiliating to play these tanks where the Russian tanks are far more Superior then the American tanks on this game and now the French line seems to be more Superior .I'm just curious and wondering why this is is it because they don't want American tanks to be superior like the M1 Abrams where it has been proven in battle the AMX 30b was used in the Gulf War along with the leopard they have been used in recent battles past World War II. They advertised this game as a World War II setting of Tanks yet they're bringing all these fantasy tanks and tanks that are still in service like I said earlier I'm just curious and wondering why this is I hope they don't give me a warning for this like they did last time I'm just hoping they don't punish me for saying this because this is a land of freedom speech can someone please clarify this for me it will be well appreciated

 

So you basically want WG to bring a Gatlin gun to a fist fight? American tanks aren't underpowered, for example: the M46 is now the best tier 9 medium in the game, the M48 along with the E50 M are the best tier 10 mediums, the T29 is the best tier 7 heavy, the T30 makes grown men cry like babies and giggle like girls, all the other tanks are very competitive at their respective tiers. 

minitel_NA #72 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:21 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 2,117
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

OK,

I'll buy the concept that T-34 was a conceptual forefather of the MBT concept (at least as the USSR viewed MBT). 

 

On the M4 though, the T20 did use HVSS suspension and the same ford V8 as many M4s (M4s used a number of different engines).  Although, on reflection, it might be better viewed as a cousin of the M4, not a descendant. 

 

 

i kind of would say so myself in fact.

i think that the US top management struggled to define what they wanted, and had to take something right away, so they made the M3, then the M4, whereas in the long run the T20 was the more modern and long lasting solution. 

 

The strength of the American thinking though, was the logistic and organization to pick a single tank, (even the wrong one didn't matter) made of readily available and reliable parts (engine...) so they could field immense amounts of them all the way around the planet and never have any shortage of tanks, parts, consumables, etc...

 

this is where the German failed. They made the most perfect machines, but incredibly complex, that nobody could build or fix on the field or even finance, and that couldn't even move due to the shortage of gas. Fail.

 

I think nowadays most armies have learnt and manage aspects :

  • a infield and concept without blatant flaws T-34
  • advanced technology. Panther/Tiger
  • reliable manufacture, logistic and supply lines. M4
  • Trained crews. (Each country above, depending at which point in time during WW2)

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

 


Ruby_Rose_ #73 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:53 PM

    I don't need help growing up! I Drink Milk!

  • Players
  • 10063 battles
  • 2,144
  • [-TKKS]
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostDagvaldRiddik, on 19 March 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

Plenty of garbage third world countries still use variants of Shermans, T-34 series, IS, etc. 

 

Careful what you say there. Also, be thankful how your're living right now.


Made by Panbun

"Efficiency is Just Clever Laziness" 

Want a RWBY signature? Here

 

 


Ruby_Rose_ #74 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:03 PM

    I don't need help growing up! I Drink Milk!

  • Players
  • 10063 battles
  • 2,144
  • [-TKKS]
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013
Also, the M1 Abrams would not fit in Blitz, seeing how the modern features will very much break the game. Because of those features, It will have to be balanced for equal tier game play which is redundant. Plus 24 inches of Composite armor is tad bit thick.


Made by Panbun

"Efficiency is Just Clever Laziness" 

Want a RWBY signature? Here

 

 


etword #75 Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:53 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22825 battles
  • 142
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

This is the part I disagree with.  T-43 was a completely new design that looked like a T-34, but shared little in actual mechanicals.  It also was really more of a MBT predecessor than the T-34 since it was intended to replace BOTH the T-34 and KV-1.  It was never fielded because the T-34/85 was generally superior as a medium tank.  The T-34/85 never superseded heavy tanks (IS and later model KVs), but was used with them.  Soviets didn't buy into the MBT concept until MUCH later. [EDITED - I looked it up, and the T-43 did share a bunch of parts with the T-34, but had new engine, suspension and turret.  Still, it was really a prototype].

 

Also, T-44 was a very, very different design from either T-34 or T-44.  Completely new configuration in hull design and turret placement.  Much stronger case that this tank was the Soviets first MBT (even if it wasn't used).

Forgive me it was the t-34 I got it confused you are correct



etword #76 Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:54 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22825 battles
  • 142
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postcheasesteak, on 20 March 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

On the M4, it has probably as good a claim to the MBT linage as the T-34.  It was used by the US as a MBT before the concept really existed.  US didn't have a true heavy during the war, and the M4 was the jack of all trades that characterizes the MBT.

 

Also, T20 was derived from M4.  The T20 was the base that ultimately led to the M26, then M46/7/8 then M60.  The changes from M4 to T20 (same engine, suspension, gun) might be less significant than the changes from T-34 to T-43. 

 

 

 good information I did not know thank you for the input it is well appreciated

etword #77 Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:57 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22825 battles
  • 142
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postminitel_NA, on 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

 

Interesting to read, though we disagree. I'm not even claiming that I am right over you, I'm just developing my point of view and curious to read yours.

 

In the mid/late thirties, A-32 tried to bring solution to T26-46 shortcomings. most of these ideas would come in the T-34.

T-34 was conceived before WW2 and was in production in 1940, as a medium tank, before Russia was even in war.

 

When war occurred, T-34-85 showed that it was sufficient to fulfill any role. This is the very definition of the main battle tank.

the success of the T-34 pushed to develop the T43, then 44, 54, etc...

The success also proved the ill fat of the heavy programs, as too slow, expensive and cumbersome.

meanwhile  the KV and IS programs were also continued (IS-2,3,...7,8) probably because they had political support in Moscow but eventually reason prevailed, and all were discarded.

 

On the battlefield it also impressed the German who designed their own panthers based on the T-34 benchmark. IMO the best tank of the war was the panther, and by far. Tiger and the subsequent King TIGER and Maus, e100 were just increasingly megalomaniac, and less and less relevant to the war situation.

 

cromwell-centurion also proved a similar thing, but many years after the T34 and the M46 also was a similarly balanced tank, but came way too late in the war. At the time war arupted in Europe, M2 was a thing, the coming M3 still had sponsons instead of a turret, and m4 weren't in production until 1942 

 

the "tank destroyer" doctrine was also a thing in the USarmy, as far removed from the reality as it was, while the tank vs battle that had already occurred In most of Europe. the concept and doctrine of MBT wasn't expressed until after all these tanks, after the war, well into the Cold War. But it was a lesson that those tanks had taught, and T-34 was the first.

 

in my view, the transition from T-34 to T-43 and T44 is much smoother and evolutionary  than the jump from M4 to T20.

 

The entire architecture of M4 was derived from the radial engine (I used rotary engine in a previous post, which proves that I'm saying nonesense at least once in a while). It had many shortcomings in armor, mobility, etc.. And its main asset was the logistics, price tag, and availability. After using a V8 the entire architecture of the vehicle had to be changed. there was nothing carried from the M4 except the turret (which was a good turret IMO).

 

so I would say that the American line of medium / MBT really started at the T20. Previous programs M2,3,4 were just leaps forward. Due to both time of studying and internal friction inside the US army, M46 didn't come until extremely late in the war, to be compared with T-34 which was fielded before the war. 

 

T-34 could fulfill any role. It was a medium, but it defined the MBT genre that prevailed later. The crude technology, finish, equipment, used in the T-34 IMO only illustrate the typical lack of care and means that WG Soviet put in the completion of their programs. it does not take away the merits of the original idea.

 

 

 

I write ite lengthy and confusing things, which proves that I'm getting tired and the movie is boring... Time to do something else :) 

Honestly I really appreciate the information that you have provided period I love history very much so and you have added to my history research and knowledge that is a lot of information and I checked it out you are correct quite a bit of knowledge you possess thank you for the information it is well appreciated



etword #78 Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:58 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22825 battles
  • 142
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postminitel_NA, on 21 March 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

 

i kind of would say so myself in fact.

i think that the US top management struggled to define what they wanted, and had to take something right away, so they made the M3, then the M4, whereas in the long run the T20 was the more modern and long lasting solution. 

 

The strength of the American thinking though, was the logistic and organization to pick a single tank, (even the wrong one didn't matter) made of readily available and reliable parts (engine...) so they could field immense amounts of them all the way around the planet and never have any shortage of tanks, parts, consumables, etc...

 

this is where the German failed. They made the most perfect machines, but incredibly complex, that nobody could build or fix on the field or even finance, and that couldn't even move due to the shortage of gas. Fail.

 

I think nowadays most armies have learnt and manage aspects :

  • a infield and concept without blatant flaws T-34
  • advanced technology. Panther/Tiger
  • reliable manufacture, logistic and supply lines. M4
  • Trained crews. (Each country above, depending at which point in time during WW2)

 

 thank you for your feedback it is well appreciated

etword #79 Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22825 battles
  • 142
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostCaesarSeizer, on 21 March 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

 

Whether or not a tank is still in service is irrelevant, because that has much more to do with how much money a country has (along with their need for a tank, etc) than how good a tank actually is. For instance, Paraguay still fields M3 Stuarts, the tier 3 (or tier 4?) American light tanks. By your logic, I should be shouting "M3 Stuart op, pls move to tier 10!", despite the fact that it would be absolutely out of place there. The only thing WG takes into consideration when planning out what tanks they're going to use is how balanced they would be for the tier. The AMX 30 B, (for which no plans have been mentioned to put it into blitz yet, by the way) is well balanced for tier 10, if a little on the weak side. Another example would be the STB-1, which was prototyped in 1971 and holds the title as the most modern tank in blitz. Why can I absolutely demolish STB-1s in my Maus, which was prototyped in 1944/1945? Because the STB-1 is balanced

 

The difference between those tanks and the M1 Abrams is that the M1 completely changed the game of tank design. Prior to the Abrams, tank design was dominated by three factors, namely, mobility, armor, and armament. If you build up one or two of them, the others have to go down. You can't max out all three. The problem with the Abrams is that through new technologies, such as its turbine engine, composite armor, computerized firing control, exceedingly long range, thermal sights, and crew protection, it managed to leapfrog the capabilities of every other tank in the world in every aspect, even tanks that are already too advanced for blitz, such as the T-72. The problem with that in a video game about WW2/Cold War tanks is that it's really, really hard to balance. In order to balance the Abrams for tier 10, you would need to nerf it to the point where it's unrecognizable, ruining the tank for the people who want it in-game and still pissing off the people who don't. WG is not stupid enough to do that, despite their constant attempts to prove me wrong.

 

EDIT: 
"It's very humiliating to play these tanks where the Russian tanks are far more Superior then the American tanks on this game"

 

... Get good, I guess? 
That should be translated to "It's very humiliating to suck at playing American tanks and get wrecked by better players who know how to use the capabilities of their tanks to their advantage, and who happen to be driving Russian tanks at that moment"

 

For instance, I find that the M4 Sherman is a better tank for me than the T-34. Why? Because it fits my playstyle. 

 

The catch here is that Russian tanks are generally just easier to use than the American tanks. Both lines will do very well in the hands of a player who knows what he's doing, and if a newer player keeps working at it, they'll be able to work with the strengths and weaknesses of any tank they get into. If you keep blaming the tank, you'll never learn how to use them right. So my advice would be to get good and come back again when you can do both nations justice.

 

 well stated and well appreciated thank you for your comments to me the t -71 is the most discouraging tank through the entire tank line of any country

minitel_NA #80 Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:13 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 393 battles
  • 2,117
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postetword, on 24 March 2017 - 06:57 PM, said:

Honestly I really appreciate the information that you have provided period I love history very much so and you have added to my history research and knowledge that is a lot of information and I checked it out you are correct quite a bit of knowledge you possess thank you for the information it is well appreciated

 

lol there are history nerds here and I'm not, I'm just curious...

but you went and double checked and that's exactly what I did months back, and now I know something and now you know something.

the double checking part is what is most important.

 

:) 


Edited by minitel_NA, 24 March 2017 - 07:13 PM.

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

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users