Anything above 3BM46 and the hull armour doesn’t really help.
Though there’s plenty of worse rounds at 12.0 and below.
3BM42, 105mm DM23, 105mm DM33, M900, and OFL 120 G1 is petty abundant.
Hull down I’d definitely say so. You don’t have to worry about getting one-shot via ammo rack with the Challenger 2, unlike the Type 90 and M1A1. You won’t have all your ammo be detonated if you get shot in the rear-side of your turret.
In other situations, yeah probably not.
Yeah. The only difference I notice is that it’s harder to UFP T-80Us from the front, but it’s not that big of a deal.
The spall difference isn’t as noticeable as something like M900 / 3BM46 / 120mm DM33 compared to M829A1.
Well, if my stats didn’t show anything, I would agree with you.
Its mobility is pretty bad, but it’s not as horrendous as I thought it would be. Probably because of the 100 extra HP it recently got.
You can definitely get into better positions with the M1A1, but you rarely can maintain it unless you’re confident that there’s nobody else that could potentially shoot you / shoot you first. Usually I scoot to another place on the map to avoid that issue after I arose too much attention.
I have a higher KPS with the M1A1, but this was after the BR changes while it still was 11.3, and the sample size is not nearly as big as my Chally 2’s:
If I played it now, it would probably be around the Chally’s KPS, maybe slightly higher.
Chally is an excellent defender because of all those attributes. The reverse speed is much more usable than something like the T-80s or T-72B3s, so even if you are in a bad situation, it’s not like you need to turn around and expose your rear.
Think of it like the Chieftain Mk.10 vs XM803 and maybe it would make more sense.
It probably is, but the M1A1 is definitely not a 0.3 BR difference, like you said.
It’s exceptionally strong in pretty much every category save for armour, if you’re getting hit in this thing then that’s an issue with positioning.
You shouldn’t be getting hit in any MBT, especially one as mobile as the M1A1 and/or IPM1.
Getting hit is more likely in a vehicle with poor mobility (I.E., Challenger 2) and it’s armour profile is still poor:
Turret roof? Wipes the turret crew if struck.
Mantlet? One of the widest mantlet weakspots in all of high tier.
UFP? Can be roflpenned by an M1A1 and practically every 11.7 and up.
LFP? One of the literal weakest in the entirety of high tier.
(Turret) Sides? Among the weakest of any high tier MBT’s.
Driver’s weakspot? Yup’s, it’s got that too.
There’s no reason for the M1A1 to be 11.7 when:
Ariete WAR and PSO sitting at the same Battle Rating despite being the same thing but with worse mobility, survivability and armour.
Leopard 2A6 and PSO sitting a full 1.0(!) BR above the M1A1 despite only offering a trade-off in firepower for turret protection.
Challenger 2’s sitting at the same Battle Rating despite having massively worse mobility, worse gun handling characteristics, significantly worse reload rate after the first 4 shots and worse penetration.
Type 90 being at the same Battle Rating desipite being a IPM1 counterpart and not a M1A1 counterpart. The M1A1 offers SIGNIFICANTLY higher penetration, much superior gun handling characteristics, armour and survivability. The reload of course compensates a lot for these drawbacks, but only enough to (arguably) be equal to an IPM1.
You think I don’t know that? 😂
Very easy to just simplify it down to just ‘an issue with positioning’ and ‘don’t get hit’.
I implore you to get a 5 KPS with the M1A1. Maybe then I will take your advice more seriously.
After all, apparently I’m the one with the skill issue.
Mobility is key, gun handling helps a lot, but you’d be a glass cannon at 12.0 (as if you aren’t one already at 11.7), and especially above.
You’re just a more mobile Ariete at that point and you know for a fact that everyone calls the Ariete abysmal.
Yes, as such with the T-90s, T-72s, and T-80s.
Can you show me?
I have never had that happen with the 200 spawns that I have in it.
Not really…
Spoiler
The 2A7V / Abrams / T-90M / Merkava (I couldn’t bothered to outline its breech area) are better, but the rest are definitely worse.
It’s not even a whole lot worse than the 2A7V / Abrams.
That’s true, though that’s why I said it’s only really useful in downtiers.
Also true, though it’s not nearly as easy to expose it unless there’s an issue with positioning. (See what I did there?)
Abrams exposes its entire turret ring way before any LFP gets shown by the Challenger… and it’s not like the T-72s / T-80s / T-90s with their lacklustre gun depression and reverse speed.
Hull side armour? I agree with you.
Where the hell are you getting turret side armour from?
It’s as good as the Abrams and only worse than the Strv 122 / Leopard 2 / Merkava and T-90M.
The ZTZ99’s, the T-80’s, the Leclerc’s, the Type 10’s / TKX’s and the Ariete’s are much worse.
Miles less of an inconvenience than the turret ring of the Abrams and Type 90.
Why are they 11.7 again?
With all that I wouldn’t be against them being 11.3.
Maybe then they’d finally be worth playing.
When did I say that they should stay at 12.7?
They should be the same BR as the 2A5s.
And you’re massively underestimating how big of a difference the most well-protected turret armour can help in almost any engagement, especially hull-down.
You’re basically a driving matchstick with the M1A1 whereas you can only shoot the breech of the 2A6. Sure you can just aim better, but again, you’re at a disadvantage anyways.
What makes you think the hull-down 2A7Vs aren’t played in Squadron Battles?
Again, forgetting all the pros that the Challenger gets.
I’ve already stated what the pros and cons are.
Let’s say the M1A1 goes to 12.0.
I mean sure, the ~80mm of extra penetration can help a lot.
You’d now be able to penetrate the Leclerc’s turret cheeks, and UFP the T-80Us more easily.
Probably even get more crew members / modules as a result of better spalling.
But now your abysmal armour and abysmal survivability is even worse.
Would I rather stay at 11.7 with the IPM1’s 522mm of pen? Probably.
If only the Challenger 2’s had the mobility of the M1A1 so that they could position themselves properly and in a decent amount of time.
Abrams turret sides are also poor, you already addressed your own argument by explaining the Strv 122’s, Leo 2A5+ have significantly better turret side armour.
200mm flat-on is very weak indeed, as need I remind you that my entire point has been that the Challenger 2 sacrifices a great deal of mobility for a supposed increase in armour protection, yet here you are showing me their side armour is the same. Not exactly worthy of the mobility trade-offs I’d say.
And you’re massively underestimating the 1.1 second reload difference.
M1A1 comfortably outreload any Russian T-80’s it faces, Leopard 2’s only match Russian T-80’s as long as it’s got an Ace crew.
You’re starting to argue that everything around the M1A1 should just drop down instead of the M1A1 going up.
Seems like an argument that kind of proves my point.
You say that as if a Challenger 2, Ariete, T-80U(-E1), T-72B3A, Type 90, TKX(P), ZTZ-99-II, ZTZ-99-III, WZ1001, Al-Khalid, MSC, Leopard 2A4M or Leopard 2PL have any better survivability than an M1A1 does.
There’s plenty that are better.
Just check Arietes, Merkavas, ZTZ99s and probably some more that I can’t think of right now.
I’d like to see what would happen in a lobby where everyone is as good as you, as I believe relying on armor while trading mobility for it would be a pretty big net negative for any such vehicle.
Didn’t notice it had the M900. But besides that 11.3 is ok. It gets gen 1 thermals which isn’t great for 11.3 and stuff like the ZTZ 99-II/III are also 11.0.
I think one of the big things about the M1 IP is that it’s a folderef vehicle at top tier- so only people who got it before it was goldered or people who really want it got it. That generally translates to its players having a much higher level of skill, therefore meaning that its stats are skewed, in the same way that a Premium tanks stats might be skewed by new players playing it.
Is it a good tank? Absolutely. I love it. It was my first Abrams to have a positive KDR.
Is it 11.7 worthy? Not more so then the B3. I’d argue they make good counterparts, but that’s been argued so many times in this thread it’s a moot point to repeat it.
Persoanlly I have no idea why Gaijin gave the m1a1 m829a1. They should have left it with m829 and kept it at 11.0 since there is not a single 11.0 tank left in the US tree.
M1A1 with M829 would still be 11.3 - 11.7.
11.0 would be absurdly low for a vehicle with it’s capabilities, M829 is still plenty capable.
We also should’ve gotten the German counterpart to the M1A1 ages ago already, namely a Leopard 2A4 of the later batches with DM33 at the 11.3 - 11.7 BR range.
What I find more disappointing is the ever decreasing reload times across the board, I liked the game more when everything reloaded slower which meant you could more easily take advantage of people’s reloads after they’d fired.
A lot of nations have gaps at the higher BR’s, but putting that aside, I think a M1E2 could possibly fit there?
Armour (and therefore survivability for the Abrams) is one of the key aspects that makes a tank good.
Sure, it may not be as versatile or important as mobility, firepower, and (sometimes) even gun handling, but it’s still important for an MBT – especially at top tier, where you have tanks with all those things combined.
I think you like stats, and so do I. But I didn’t think that you would ignore the fact that people improve, and all-time stats doesn’t reflect how good a player currently is.
All-time, sure. It’s pretty hard to recover from skill issues of the past / the stock grind.
I’m talking about once you’ve improved, have the vehicle spaded, and possibly even experted / aced.
Also depends on what you mean by ‘top tier’.
11.3 / 11.7 isn’t exactly the highest BRs in the game at the moment.
So, either BPA_Jon is not as good as you remembered (though I’m pretty sure that isn’t true), you’re underestimating my abilities, or you’re understating the capabilties of the Challenger 2 (in GRB).
Leclerc cannot be ammo racked through the turret cheeks unless you shoot long-barrel DM53. You can only ammo rack it (one shot it) through the breech.
Type 90’s turret cheek armour is effectively the same as the M1A1’s / IPM1’s. They, too, aren’t going to survive most 12.0 shells through the turret cheeks, including 3BM46. Though I’m not suggesting it should go to 12.0, am I?
Leopard 2A4M is quite mediocre at 12.0 when you compare it to the Type 90, M1A1, IPM1, and Challenger 2. But even then, it gets good thermals and enough turret cheek armour to stop 3BM60 and its equivalents. Again, the only place you can shoot it to ammo rack it is through the right-side of the breech.
VT5 is abymsal, being outclassed by the Type 90, M1A1, and IPM1.
Type 90 has better gun depression, better dynamic gun depression (via suspension controls), much better armour, and a 4s reload… whereas the VT5 gets better gun handling, a slightly better round, better thermals, and a drone.
The M1A1 and IPM1 sacrifices the 4s reload and suspension controls of the Type 90, but gets much better static gun depression, much better round, and the same gun handling (possibly even better) than the VT5.
There’s no reason why the VT5 should be at 11.7. Move it down to 11.3, especially considering the Booker is at 10.7 for some reason.
Al Khalid is another mediocre vehicle. It effectively has the mobility of NATO MBTs, and a good round, but it has an abysmal reload, much worse gun depression, gun handling as good as the Type 90’s, and only has turret cheek armour to boast about (forgetting the giant forehead / breech weakspot).
The MBT-2000 isn’t much better in terms of armour. I wouldn’t be opposed to them moving down to 11.3.
It’s the T-72B3 but sacrifices some gun handling and a good amount of hull armour for better top speed and much better reverse speed.
Sure it may contribute to it, but regardless of where you put the M1A1, the 2A6 and Ariete should still go down.
All those pictures that you sent me definitely doesn’t wipe the turret crew – that would be hyperbole.
All these roof weakspots aren’t really a problem because of how inconsistent it is to hit them, let alone do any meaningful damage, especially if you’re using your gun depression on a hill.
Oh, and thank you for posting a video made 6 years ago when spall liners and volumetric for the Challenger 2s weren’t a thing.
If you couldn’t position yourself correctly then that’s on you.
Do you position your Sherman the same was as you would with an M24?
Use the pros of your vehicles.
It’s not like the Challenger is slow and has no armour to work with.
Except, again, you’re failing to take into account that there’s no ammo to have you get one-shot:
And the ~200mm - ~220mm of KE protection is enough to shrug off most autocannons anyways… bar the HSTV-L / RDF-LT when ~30 degrees from the side.
The turret has spall liners everywhere too, so although spall liners have been nerfed into the ground, it’s definitely better than what other 11.7 MBTs have to offer.
I know what it offers, and it’s why I agree with you that the M1A2 / M1A1 HC / Clickbait / AIM should be the same BR as the 2A6 / 2A5 / PSO.
Exactly, very good for a light tank with no survivability nor armour.
Again, it doesn’t matter if the M1A1 was 12.0 or 11.0. Those MBTs should be moved down regardless. It’s clear that the Ariete AMV isn’t as potent as the rest of the great 12.7s. It’s clear that the T-90M (despite its armour and gun handling) is still abysmal compared to the rest of the great 12.7s.
It’s clear that the 2A6 , PSO, 2A4M and 2PL are overtiered. The 2PL has characteristics as the 2A5 except it has better thermals at the cost of worse all-round turret armour, and a much worse hull armour?
Why the hell is the VT4 and VT4A1 12.3 and 12.7 respectively when the ZTZ99A is better in most aspects?
Except the Challenger 2, T-80U, ZTZ, WZ, Al-Khalid, Leopard 2A4M and Leopard 2PL do have better survivability. The M1A1 HC, M1A1 AIM, M1A2 and the rest of the 12.0 - 12.7 Abrams have much better survivability because they can’t get penetrated through the cheeks, let alone get one-shot through them.
Hull-down?
The Challenger 2 can only die to crew knockout, which is only possible in one-shot either by shooting the over the breech or under the breech, both of which not being particularly reliable.
Either way, you breech him or get the gunner + commander and then he can retreat back to cover.
T-80U? More likely than not, you’re just going to get the breech and the gunner / commander.
He would be able to retreat back into cover.
T-72B3A? Same thing as the T-80s except it rarely can retreat back into cover in time. I’d say it’s about equal to the M1A1 Abrams, especially if you’re thinking it should go to 12.0.
Type 90 has the same problem as the M1A1, so I won’t say anything other than that it should stay at 11.7 too.
TKX (P) is an interesting one. It has better turret cheek armour than the Type 90 but it’s not really reliable, unlike the Challenger 2 and the other MBTs. It’s much easier to ammo rack the TKX (P) through the breech than any of the other MBTs on your list besides the MSC and Type 90.
I’d say it has the same survivability as the M1A1 (if you shoot the left cheek / breech of the M1A1, you must retreat, whereas the commander + gunner being on different sides with the TKX can help a lot), and the TKX (P) is more of a side-grade to the Type 90 due to having better optics + thermals + reverse speed, but much worse acceleration.
I don’t think I need to explain the ZTZs / WZs / Al-Khalids when they’re hull-down either, since they have a similar story as the T-80s.
MSC is similar to the TKX (P) for its BR, but with way more reliable turret cheek armour, but just as big (if not bigger) breech to ammo rack it through.
The 2A4M and 2PL have good enough turret cheek armour to avoid a 1-shot ammo rack through the cheeks unless you shoot the right-side of the breech (but that’s still miles better than for the M1A1).
When it isn’t hull-down, all of those vehicles don’t have good survivability.
Before the addition of the turret baskets, I’d say the Leopards and M1s were able to tank a lot more shots and either run away or fight back. But after those additions they’re effectively as screwed as the Russian / Chinese MBTs.
They explode in one-shot way more often, but their fuel tanks often can lead to damage only to the autoloader and engine, which results in your death.
You may survive the first shot more often than those MBTs but you sure won’t be able to survive the second one, let alone retaliate.
Also, what makes you think the IPM1 → M1A1 is worth a 0.3 BR increase, but M1A1 → M1A2 / M1A1 HC / AIM / Clickbait is worth a 0.3 BR increase too?
Either the IPM1 and M1A1 difference is too large, or the M1A1 and M1A2 / M1A1 HC / AIM / Clickbait difference is too small.
And what makes you think the M1A2 / M1A1 HC / AIM / Clickbait should be 0.3 BR lower than the SEP V1, M1A2T, because of… thermals or slightly better dart (as with the AIM)?
