Just because you need to aim slightly when using the T-55AM-1’s APFSDS shell doesn’t matter. You’re comparing the best protected vehicles at the battle rating. Not to mention HEAT-FS is still a very viable option at 8.7 if you need the extra punch.
However, the BR is mostly lighter vehicles.
And sure, the M103 can “Technically” penetrate the T-55AM-1, but that doesn’t mean the two seeing one another is fair.
The Leopard A1A1 is objectively worse and sits at 9.0
I don’t see why the T-55AM-1, which is still performing better than other 8.7 vehicles in the matchmaker and is also referred to as the best USSR Ground Grinder, can’t move up to 9.0.
Just because the firepower means you need to slightly aim at its Battle rating doesn’t mean it doesn’t excel at everything else.
And no, the armor is not overstated. You’re just trusting Protection Analysis too much.
No. Leopard A1A1 is one of the best 8.7s. It lolpens all things below its BR.
And Leopard 1A5 fires one of the best 105 rounds.
OF-40 does not have thermals.
@Just_Baron
The only way T-55AM-1 goes to 9.0 is if ALL 9.0s go to 9.3, including Leopard A1A1, and ALL 8.7s go to 9.0.
T-55AM-1 is one of the worst 8.7s.
It has the worst APFSDS, the worst HEATFS for the BR, and due to its gun depression it can’t adequately use its ATGM.
All it has going for it is HEATFS protection from the add-on armor.
APHE is hilarious bad for 8.7. If you’re using that, there’s a reason it was 8.3 for so many years.
Cause with APHE it’s just a T-54 with a stab, slightly more anti-HEAT armor, and a laser range finder.
Nothing “technically” about it. The M103, despite your claims that it couldn’t penetrate anywhere, can penetrate the vast majority of the T-55AM’s frontal area. As you said, just because you need to aim slightly doesn’t mean the shell doesn’t work. Now compare that to the AM-1’s performance against the following common vehicles:
The Leo 2K that you brought up. Dunno if you know this, but that is one of the least armoured 9.7 MBTs.
Not true, the A1A1 has significant advantages in firepower and mobility, though as I previously said I agree that the A1A1 should be 8.7
Let’s take a look at your main claim:
I’ve demonstrated that the armour isn’t all that remarkable. While it’s better than the
those vehicles are significantly more mobile than the AM-1. On the topic of mobility, it’s alright but not great. 56km/h forward is decent, though a mere 16.6hp/tonne is significantly outclassed by the aforementioned “lighter vehicles” which have roughly 20hp/tonne or more as a general rule. Additionally, the 8km/h reverse rate is a significant disadvantage, especially for a vehicle without the firepower to reliably knock out opponents in a single shot. We’ve already established that the AM-1’s firepower is the literal worst of the BR. In terms of " better equipped and better at acquisition" this is perhaps somewhat true with access to a LRF. However, that LRF isn’t a huge deal. Essentially every 9.0 besides the A1A1 has LRF and all are better in many if not every way than the AM-1. LRF is also found on other MBTs such as the Strv 104, Olifant 1A, AMX-30s, ZTZ59A/D, and others that like the AM-1 don’t have the overall performance to compete at 9.0 despite the generally 9.0 feature of LRF. The AM-1 is only
because of its SL and RP rewards, and the USSR not really having many good premiums below 10.0. Until recently with the addition of the OT-55, there wasn’t any premium MBT between 6.3 (T-34-100) and 10.0 (TURMS).
t-55’s aphe allows you to onetap most opponents in silhouette.
i won’t even talk about the difference in damage between aphe and apfsds - aphe is way, way better.
APHE eto camorniki? Esli da, to eto ne panaceya, oni daleko ne vseh probivayut v siluet i mogut rikoshetit’, no lom na etom tanke parasha koneshno. +ballistika huzhe u kamornikov, mozhno privyknut’, no eto tozhe reshaet v nekotoryh momentah.
9.0 would sort of balance it against ZTZ88s but I guess that is a false statement cause trading mobility for this little composite armour is in my view not sufficient balancing wise. I do agree both are sort at the same level though. The BR rise was when a bunch of Chinese players including me grinded too hard during the October break and the winrate went skyrocketing. I guess Leopard 1s do have reasons for being 8.7.
It is difficult to balance the Leopard A1A1 at 8.7 or 9.0 with DM23, so I suggest that the DM23 APFSDS is removed and the vehicle’s BR moved down to 8.3 together with the M48A2 G A2, which creates a viable Germany 8.3 lineup. DM13 APDS replaces DM23 as the main high velocity shell against armor. Other types of ammunition stay the same.
As for the 8.7 / 9.0 gap, Gaijin could add a new Leopard 1 variant: the Leopard 1A4. This variant is a Leopard A1A1 hull with a Radkampwagen 90 turret, meaning it has laser rangefinder. For the APFSDS shell, if Leopard 1A4 sits at BR 8.7, the tank will have DM23. If it sits at BR 9.0, the tank will have DM33 as tier IV mod, with DM23 as tier I mod.
The Leopard 1A5 sits fine at 9.3 since it has gunner thermal sight. It is better than French AMX 32 105 at the same BR. It is also part of the Germany 9.3 lineup, which is an excellent lineup compared to that of other nations.
You can balance that at 9.0 since ZTZ88B/A both sit same BR and ZTZ88A has better shell. It is arguable that trading mobility for 80mm of composite armour against leopards or simply anyone in this BR is useless, but at least they do have counter parts right?
The 1A4 is directly better than the A1A1, why would it be 8.7 but the A1A1 can’t with the same firepower? I’d have the A1A1 just be 8.7. For 8.3 there’s the Leopard 1A3 which entered service earlier than the A1A1 or 1A4 ('73 vs '77/'78) which means denying it the 1978 DM23 makes more sense. The 1A4 with DM23 would be 9.0 as it’s essentially identical to the OF-40 Mk2, with slightly improved armour and the crucial LRF over the A1A1.
