It probably should’ve gone up to 11.7 if the B3 didn’t go down to 11.3 but that’s not the case. I argue that both the B3 and IPM1 are counterparts.
One offers excellent armor, gun handling and a deadly round (that can pen the turret cheeks of the IPM1). The other offers good mobility, good round, and gun handling.
It ultimately comes down to the map you play on. Majority of maps leverage the B3’s advantages where as with IPM1 there’s only a few that can do that.
The idea that CQC favors mobility is a hilarious statement to make considering that you won’t be reaching top speeds, nor will be moving around at high speeds. Reverse speed somewhat matters but can easily be compensated by good positioning. The only argument can be made is about it’s ROF, but if you hit your shots right (which shouldn’t be an issue in B3), then all that matters is whoever shoots who first.
There’s a reason why the BMPT is extremely annoying to face at 11.3 and it’s not because it has good mobility. It’s because it has 12.7 armor at 11.3. If it wasn’t for the armor, it would be a glorified bmp2m.
In my experience from playing both tanks in CQC, armor has saved me more times than mobility or ROF. In medium to long range maps, it’s the other way around.
To answer your question,
Yes, but if the IPM1 goes up in BR, so should the B3.
Yet it has better armor and HUGELY better armanment than the M1. So it sits higher. Im not even gonna start about the “strong arena” which is basically 10.3 tank with top tier APFSDS and useless APS.
Damage is determined primarily by a spall present in the game’s code, and M774, M833 and M900 all have identical presets to 120-125mm APFSDS such as 3BM-60, DM53, L27, etc.
And how do M774, & M833 stack up in terms of comparative residual penetration vs any given target?
I’d posit due to their sub par penetration, vs their 120~125mm counterparts (due to the fact that Gaijin’s modified Lanz-Odermatt formula accounts for penetrator caliber, diameter and mass among other quantities) that they are worse in any real case, sure they might be similar in a vacuum, but not in actuality.
I’m not sure about that one.
It’s armour at 11.7 is already quite mediocre, though its turret cheek armour is still usable in a full downtier.
At 12.0 it’s as useful as a wet paper towel.
It will be an easy frontal ammo rack detonation for anything with ~530mm of KE penetration.
It’s a good competitor to the Chally 2, unless you want to move it up to 12.0 too.
I’d say keep the M1A1 at 11.7, move the IPM1 to 11.7, and move the M1A1 AIM / HC / Clickbait and M1A2 to 12.3.
Better thermals, much much much better turret cheeks (the best / second best in the game), actual good hull armour for hull-down and general use cases (for downtiers), no turret basket (like you said), spall liners, more smoke grenade pops.
Hull armor can work if you’re getting shot by with subpar rounds for the would be 12.0 BR, such as 3BM46.
Forgot about that one.
For hull down, maybe.
Other scenarios, doubt it.
And a bit worse shell.
I don’t know, I feel like CR2 is putting too many eggs in the “hull down basket” while being one of the slowest vehicles at it’s BR, which definitely hampers it’s ability to reach such spots, reducing it’s overall performance.
In my opinion M1A1 should be a better tank for the average gameplay, but I don’t know if that’s enough to be at a higher BR than CR2.
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.
