M1 Abrams Upscale

[Zaqui121212]

The Real World M1 Abrams Tank Has AP Listed At 9-A (Small Building Level)
However The Tanks Durability Is Listed At 8-C (Building Level)

VSBW separates AP and durability only when there is explicit evidence for a mismatch. The M1 Abrams has no such evidence, and it possesses explosive rounds capable of 8‑C destruction. Since its durability is already rated at 8‑C, and it has 8‑C destructive output, its AP should be upgraded to 8‑C for consistency. Not to mention the M1 Abrams can absolutely destroy another Abrams, therefore it’s attack potency would be 8-C (Building Level)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We rate AP based on energy values, durability is the part that is more complicated. If anything it's the durability that should be downgraded if we wanted to make any changes. Total destruction isn't really durability, and the tank going at full speed is still only 9-A levels of KE.

 

[Zaqui121212]

We rate AP based on energy values, durability is the part that is more complicated. If anything it's the durability that should be downgraded if we wanted to make any changes. Total destruction isn't really durability, and the tank going at full speed is still only 9-A levels of KE.

The 8-C Calc Isn’t Bad, Here It Is If Your Wondering:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:KLOL506/MCU-_Sonic_spears#articleComment

Which Puts The Tanks Durability At Building Level, However The Profile Doesn’t Take Into Consideration The Fact That An Abrams Is Capable Of Destroying Another Abrams, Maybe The KE Itself Isn’t Building Level, But The Tank Would Technically Be Capable Of Destroying Medium-Sized Buildings And Other Tanks Which Have 8-C Durability. Also Why If It Has 8-C Durability We Don’t Just Put 8-C In The Tier Category?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Hi, American here to comment on the M1 Freebrams...

1. Most things about the M1 Freebrams are 9-A, including it's primary weapon and KE
2. Durability IRL, espeically for machines, often can't actually take the KE it puts out forever.
3. Attack Potency does NOT scale to Durability without proof, espeically not to...
4. The 8-C value is literally there for the case where you obliterate the Tank. As in, leave nothing but scraps and smoke behind obliterate. Which leads into...

The 8-C Calc Isn’t Bad, Here It Is If Your Wondering:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:KLOL506/MCU-_Sonic_spears#articleComment

Which Puts The Tanks Durability At Building Level, However The Profile Doesn’t Take Into Consideration The Fact That An Abrams Is Capable Of Destroying Another Abrams, Maybe The KE Itself Isn’t Building Level, But The Tank Would Technically Be Capable Of Destroying Medium-Sized Buildings And Other Tanks Which Have 8-C Durability. Also Why If It Has 8-C Durability We Don’t Just Put 8-C In The Tier Category?

I have a good question: if someone rips you in half with their bare hands, do you scale to that someone?

Yeah count me for removing 8-C and making it a note in durability that that's the value needed for total destruction.

 

[Zaqui121212]

1. Uhm okay? That’s what you think, I’m trying to prove otherwise. what if most its attacks are 9-A? My guy That literally doesn’t debunk anything, it only means some of its attacks are 9-A, doesn’t disprove the 8-C

2. That’s irrelevant to the wikis logic, the abrams can still destroy other tanks similar to itself nonetheless, what do you mean by "take the KE it puts out forever"?

3. There is proof, the tank simply destroys other tanks like itself, why is that so hard to understand? The Blatant ignorance is insane.

4. Yes, which another abrams can do? Let me show you an example:

US Army Responds to Losses of M1 Abrams Tanks in Ukraine

With all but 4 of the 31 armored vehicles gifted to Ukraine and first deployed in February 2024 having been destroyed, the Pentagon will spend $100 million in countermeasures for its tanks.

www.kyivpost.com

The First Picture Is Of An M1 Abrams Destroyed After Being Deployed To Ukraine, Sources Say It Was Either Destroyed By An FPV Drone Or A Modern Anti-Tank Guided Missile, An Abrams Has A WAY More Destructive Output Than Either Of Those Things, It Could Reduce Another Abrams To Something Worse Than That Picture.

5. As for your question? That’s a horrendously terrible comparison, the abrams is a weapon platform, not a biological organism, the victim has no comparable mechanism to output that force, biological grappling is completely different from mechanical destructive output.

6. Lmao If you vote the remove the building level label, then actually debunk the calculation instead of just saying to remove it TF? it seems solid to me, ant also agrees with it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The 8-C Calc Isn’t Bad, Here It Is If Your Wondering:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:KLOL506/MCU-_Sonic_spears#articleComment

Which Puts The Tanks Durability At Building Level, However The Profile Doesn’t Take Into Consideration The Fact That An Abrams Is Capable Of Destroying Another Abrams, Maybe The KE Itself Isn’t Building Level, But The Tank Would Technically Be Capable Of Destroying Medium-Sized Buildings And Other Tanks Which Have 8-C Durability. Also Why If It Has 8-C Durability We Don’t Just Put 8-C In The Tier Category?

That is based on energy required to completely fragment a tank; we don't give out durability ratings based on "They were one-shotted and absolutely obliterated by this attack." It's not like we give Wall level durability ratings to average humans based on energy required to shatter someone's entire skeletal system.

Also, Abrams destroy each other piece by piece via a multitude of attacks. It's not like they fragment each other just a single 9-A crash nor do their 9-B weapons destroy other Abrams to the same level as that aforementioned 8-C calculation.

 

[DaReaperMan]

1. Uhm okay? That’s what you think, I’m trying to prove otherwise. what if most its attacks are 9-A? My guy That literally doesn’t debunk anything, it only means some of its attacks are 9-A, doesn’t disprove the 8-C

See below.

2. That’s irrelevant to the wikis logic, the abrams can still destroy other tanks similar to itself nonetheless, what do you mean by "take the KE it puts out forever"?

Irrelevant for verses that ARE NOT real life. Most characters in fiction can take what they dish out without problem. Most things IRL have problems smacking things at full tilt. Don't believe me? Punch something full force and tell me how your hand feels.

3. There is proof, the tank simply destroys other tanks like itself, why is that so hard to understand? The Blatant ignorance is insane.

Show me a tank destroying another tank, WITHOUT hitting the ammunition, that results in something like this:

4. Yes, which another abrams can do? Let me show you an example:

US Army Responds to Losses of M1 Abrams Tanks in Ukraine

With all but 4 of the 31 armored vehicles gifted to Ukraine and first deployed in February 2024 having been destroyed, the Pentagon will spend $100 million in countermeasures for its tanks.

www.kyivpost.com

The First Picture Is Of An M1 Abrams Destroyed After Being Deployed To Ukraine, Sources Say It Was Either Destroyed By An FPV Drone Or A Modern Anti-Tank Guided Missile, An Abrams Has A WAY More Destructive Output Than Either Of Those Things, It Could Reduce Another Abrams To Something Worse Than That Picture.

You wanna know how? Hit the ammunition. Freebrams have weaknesses like any tank, and generally hitting ammo=very dead tank. Otherwise, it's not complete fragmentation, it's putting galaxy-sized holes in armor being developed to take those kinds of holes.

5. As for your question? That’s a horrendously terrible comparison, the abrams is a weapon platform, not a biological organism, the victim has no comparable mechanism to output that force, biological grappling is completely different from mechanical destructive output.

So, no, you don't scale in durability to something that rips you in half, so why would the M1 Freebrams be 8-C for something that turns it into scrap metal?

6. Lmao If you vote the remove the building level label, then actually debunk the calculation instead of just saying to remove it TF? it seems solid to me, ant also agrees with it.

I don't have to debunk the calculation, I just have to drill it into yer head that you don't scale to something that one-shots you.

It is not a flaw with the calc, it is a flaw with how you're trying to use said calc.

 

[Zaqui121212]

See below.

Irrelevant for verses that ARE NOT real life. Most characters in fiction can take what they dish out without problem. Most things IRL have problems smacking things at full tilt. Don't believe me? Punch something full force and tell me how your hand feels.

Show me a tank destroying another tank, WITHOUT hitting the ammunition, that results in something like this:

You wanna know how? Hit the ammunition. Freebrams have weaknesses like any tank, and generally hitting ammo=very dead tank. Otherwise, it's not complete fragmentation, it's putting galaxy-sized holes in armor being developed to take those kinds of holes.

So, no, you don't scale in durability to something that rips you in half, so why would the M1 Freebrams be 8-C for something that turns it into scrap metal?

I don't have to debunk the calculation, I just have to drill it into yer head that you don't scale to something that one-shots you.

It is not a flaw with the calc, it is a flaw with how you're trying to use said calc.

Let me clarify my point more cleanly.

1. The Abrams profile is a real world profile, so the “fiction vs real life” distinction doesn’t apply. The wiki tiers real-world weapons by destructive output and destructive input, not by engineering fatigue.

2. You might have just proven my point, If the Abrams ammunition explosion is what destroys the tank, then the ammunition has enough destructive power to overcome the tank’s full durability. Since the tank’s durability is rated at 8‑C via total destruction, the ammunition explosion must also be 8‑C. Therefore the Abrams does have an 8‑C destructive mechanism, and its highest level of AP should be 8‑C.

3. The “rip someone in half” analogy doesn’t apply because humans have no mechanism to output that force.

4. If the 8‑C durability calc stands, then the durability stands. If the durability stands and the tank has 8‑C destructive mechanisms, then its highest AP is 8‑C unless explicit evidence prevents scaling.

If the proposal is to remove the 8‑C durability, then the calc needs to be disproven. Otherwise the profile should be internally consistent.

If my earlier message came off a bit rude, that wasn’t my intention, I’m just trying to keep the discussion clear and consistent. Sorry about that if it did.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I see we have a stonewall who doesn't understand what that calc is calculating and why it doesn't apply to normal durability.


Hey does Alderaan scale to the Death Star in durability?

If your answer is anything but "yes" or a synonym of that word, why does the 8-C Calc apply, because it's the same concept.

 

[Zaqui121212]

I see we have a stonewall who doesn't understand what that calc is calculating and why it doesn't apply to normal durability.


Hey does Alderaan scale to the Death Star in durability?

If your answer is anything but "yes" or a synonym of that word, why does the 8-C Calc apply, because it's the same concept.

Fair enough, the Alderaan analogy makes sense. Though still, an Abrams can destroy another Abrams and it is still completely destroyed when it’s own ammo explodes, What of that?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Fair enough, the Alderaan analogy makes sense. Though still, an Abrams can destroy another Abrams and it is still completely destroyed when it’s own ammo explodes, What of that?

That's just a weakness of having to carry your ammo. Instead of one shot it's like 30-43 going off at the same time.

 

[Rex_Eckles]

Yeah count me for removing 8-C and making it a note in durability that that's the value needed for total destruction.

Doesn't it already say that?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Doesn't it already say that?

well clearly, that's insufficient.