Hmm bro why do you have a running man on your profile?
1 Like
I think it is because i was in the closed beta testing for infantry, i selected like a title on my profile.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
It depends on the comparison standard. If compared with BMPT, IPM1 is only worth 10.3
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?
No such thing as an M1E2. Are you talking about the M1E1?
M1E2, XM24 L67 105mm gun.
I’ve only ever heard of this as the M1 (XM24). That’s my bad.
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.
But regardless, let’s look at this:
After the BR decompression at top tier, the M1A1 was still 11.3, but changed to 11.7 after Nov 11th:
Within that time frame, BPA_Jon played the M1A1 39 times (spawns) and managed to achieve a 4.23 KPS (if you include the air kills too).
Here was my performance around the same time frame:
And this is my performance after the BR decompression (stock grind included) with the Challenger 2:
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).
Hell, BPA_Jon is doing well in them too:
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)?
If you’re talking about the 11.7 Arietes, 11.3 Merkavas, and 11.0 ZTZ99s, sure. Though I wouldn’t recommend using the Challenger’s UFP against them.
You don’t have to imagine it. In Squadron Battles there are a lot of extremely competent players. At top tier (12.7), you’d see Merkavas, Abrams, Strv 122s, and Leopard 2A7Vs.
What’s interesting is that they actually bother taking out the Strv 122s and 2A7Vs, despite them having a much worse reload and mobility. The fact of the matter is that it’s not as simple as ‘haha I outmaneuvered you, you will die now’.
Armour can help especially at longer ranges, while hull-down, due to how long it takes for those rounds to travel.
And people can miss – even the best players. Making it harder for them to damage you is very useful.
That being said, if you’re in a tournament (where it’s often very close-range), the Challenger 2 would most definitely not be as useful as the M1A1.
But in GRB, things are a lot different.
You can see how people complain about the T-80s and T-90s having really good armour and therefore they must be overpowered. I think we can all agree that those vehicles have severe drawbacks for said armour, which isn’t worth it, often limits how well a good player can perform, and can be exploited by more experienced players.
The Challenger 2 is a bit different though, is similar to the Chieftain Mk.10 (and coincidentally is another great hull-down vehicle for the British tech tree), which is actually a meta vehicle for Squadron Battles because of said armour, firepower, (good enough) reverse speed, and gun depression.
You can say that the OF-40 Mk.2 is better than the Chieftain in terms of gun handling, gun depression, and especially mobility… but would you say that they shouldn’t be at the same BR?
Why is it that we came to an agreement that the Leopard 2K should be 10.3… but the T-72B3 ‘Arena’, with worse gun depression, reload, and mobility, is reasonable at 11.0?
After all, just don’t get hit with the Leopard 2K. 120mm DM23 is good enough to go through most of the T-72B3’s weakspots anyways…
What about the T-72B and the OF-40 (MTCA)?
Let’s say the OF-40 (MTCA) should be 9.7 (instead of 9.3), and the T-72B should be 10.0 (instead of 10.3).
Why is the OF-40 (MTCA) a lower BR than the T-72B if the OF-40 (MTCA) is better than it in everyway other than a worse round and armour? Mind you, I’d say 6.7s reload 105mm DM33 is usable all the way up to 10.3.
Should the MTCA be 10.0 too? Should the T-72B be 9.7 too?
If so, is the armour and round of the T-72B really a side-grade to the mobility, gun depression, gun handling, and reload of the MTCA?
The average player struggles with armour (which is a skill issue in itself), but the best players struggle with armour too (albeit much less so). Should we base the BRs based on the top 0.01% of war thunder or the average player? I think you’d need a bit of both.
If we go back to the OF-40 (MTCA) VS T-72B example, the T-72B is probably more noob-friendly than the OF-40 (MTCA). Conversely, the OF-40 (MTCA) is a lot harder to play, but can allow better players to perform.
In most cases, I would much rather take the OF-40 (MTCA) in a 1v1 than the T-72B, unless it’s a long-range duel (obviously). Armour especially helps at long-range, where accuracy may not be as easy.
If we go the ‘noob-friendly’ approach, you’d probably see the OF-40 (MTCA) at 9.3 and the T-72B at 10.3 (like how it is already).
It’s also quite funny to mention that the T-72A’s UFP can be lol-penned by the OF-40 (MTCA), meaning its armour is only really useful when hull-down… though even then the forehead is still a weakspot.
Now we could do the opposite, if we go the ‘pro stats only’ approach, you’d probably see the OF-40 (MTCA) at 10.0 and the T-72B at 9.7.
But if we take both into account, I’d say a 9.7 BR for the OF-40 (MTCA) and the T-72B at 10.0 / 10.3 would be reasonable.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s pretty obscure and I’ve not seen much more info about it, though it does seem like it would make a good 11.0.
Firepower roughly equivalent with an IPM1 but the same armour as a standard M1.
no way you said that. Challengers never will have such an amazing survivability straight because they keep their ammo in hull
You think having ammo in the turret is safer when most rounds at 11.7 (let alone 12.0) can penetrate straight through the M1A1’s turret cheeks and detonate the ammo? 😅
I do think that i got oneshotted to ammo with British much more times than i got oneshotted there with US tanks or Leopards, so i guess its safer?
With the IPM1 (at its current BR), M1 Abrams, all the 12.0/ 12.7 Abrams, and pretty much all the Leopards, yes, you would be less likely to explode when penetrated than the Challengers on average.
Though the M1A1 at 11.7, I’d say you’re more likely to explode (via turret bustle ammo explosion) or be severly crippled (breech, engine, turret basket, etc.) than the Challenger 2.
And that would certainly be the case at 12.0.
Keep in mind the Chally 2’s hull has UFP protection; thus, most rounds don’t do as much spalling as when penetrating weak hull armour of things like the M1A1, Type 90, or 2A4M / 2PL.
Challenger 2 gets spall liners for its UFP too, and doesn’t have a turret basket either.
The only problem is that majority of the ammo is stored in the back of the hull, so even with all those advantages I’d say the Challenger 2 is mostly on par with the rest of the MBTs now when it comes to surviving a shot to the hull.
If Leclerc can be 12.7, then M1A1 can be at least 12.3.
12.0 is more than reasonable demand.
Or will you support moving Leclerc down to 11.7/12.0?
Yeah, just saying there are many 11.0+ vehicles against which CR2’s UFP isn’t going to work.
I forgot about all 3BM60 slingers too.
That’s true, but those tanks have useful hull armor without needing to rely on coin flips to get shot with something subpar (like 3BM46 or similar). From what I could see, when compared to CR2, they lose much less mobility to gain more in terms of armor, gun handling and firepower. They aren’t that far off Merkavas and M1A2s if the following list is to be believed, unlike CR2s which are easily the slowest of the bunch.
Definitely, but uparmored Leopards have much more armor to rely on than CR2, where latter one only has turret cheeks that can eat average rounds. I tried to say that armor gives diminishing returns in higher skill lobbies, especially armor layouts with situational protection.
I’m fine with how current BRs are determined, just saying that limited armor protection of CR2 is “helped” by WT’s MM and lack of any matchmaking.
1 Like
Yes, though that’s a choice you must make when encountering certain vehicles.
Typically all the 3BM60 slingers you may meet in a full downtier have awful reverse speeds, meaning that you can reliably side-scrape against them in a CQC situation… exploit that.
Typically all 3BM46 and below slingers have little to no armour (nor survivability) and can’t penetrate your UFP reliably… exploit that too.
I would 100% agree with you if we were talking about the Challenger 2E / Black Night.
Keep in mind that we’re now comparing the Challenger 2’s, which is found at 11.7, to the best armoured NATO MBT, which is found at 12.7.
The Chally 2E’s / Black Night’s UFP armour can barely be relied on – only in full downtiers / 12.0 downtiers against the T-80Us, Type 90s, and TKX (P)s.
The Chally 2E gets a much worse dart, first stage, hull armour, and survivability than the 2A7… for 4 shells at a 5s reload.
If you ask me, I think the Chally 2E would be reasonable at 12.3, same with the Black Night.
However, the Chally 2’s hull armour at 11.7 can be relied on against practically any 10.7 (besides the Obj 292 of course), some of the 11.0s (more notably the MSC and PT-16/T14 mod, the rest can be side-scraped or picked-off from a distance while hull-down), 11.3 (such as the Swedish T-80 U and IPM1), and 11.7 vehicles (the poor VT5, the T-80U, the T-80UM-2, the T-80UK, and the Type 90)… along with the TKX (P) (for whatever reason) and T-80U-E1 found at 12.0.
It faces much weaker opponents than the Leopard 2A7V.
I’d say the ‘average’ round for top tier would be ~600mm of penetration. Though at 11.7, it’s more of an outlier, and closer to ~550mm.
By no means does the Chally 2’s turret cheeks only eat ‘average’ rounds, even for top tier:
I’d say the Abrams has the third best turret armour (besides the Leopard 2A7s / Strv 122s / Challenger 2s and possibly the T-90Ms).
And I think the Chally 3 is a side-grade to the Chally 2, since it gets a much larger first stage (much better sustained fire rate), better hull shot survivability, and much better dart… at the cost of a worse reload of 6s instead of 5s (worse instantaneous fire rate) and turret shot survivability:
Either they should both be 12.0 or both be 11.7.
The BRs of all the top tier vehicles mentioned are in-game?
It definitely is, but that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
For the better or for the worse.
1 Like
Here’s how I look at it:
Comparing the Leclerc to the M1A2 SEP V1, the Leclerc has:
- Better mobility of the SEP by a reasonable degree
- Can aim its gun behind itself on level ground
- Has an autoloader, meaning that there will always be a constant 5s reload
- Has the commander and loader be on opposite sides of the turret
- No turret basket
- Front fuel tanks can act as spall liner
- Smaller turret ring
but
- Has worse gun depression (-8 instead of -10)
- Has no ESS
- Has worse number of smoke pops (2 instead of 3), albeit covers a larger area in front.
- Much worse round (576mm instead of SEP’s 629mm)
- Less number of crew (3 instead of 4), meaning side-shots are easier to one-shot.
- Worse turret armour (Turret cheeks stop ~580mm rounds, but gunner port and breech is very prone to ammo racks)
- Worse hull armour (no autoricochet unless angled and depressed)
- Front fuel tank can explode
- Hence overall worse survivability
Similar hull shot survivability as the M1A2 SEP V1.
Overall, I’d say the Leclerc should go down to 12.3, since although it’s more mobile than the Abrams, it’s far less versatile.
12.0 may be pushing it.
Let’s now compare the Leclerc S1 / SXXI to the M1A1:
- Can aim its gun behind itself on level ground (+0.1)
- Has an autoloader, meaning that there will always be a constant 5s reload (+0.15)
- Has the commander and loader be on opposite sides of the turret (+0.2)
- No turret basket (+0.15)
- Front fuel tanks can act as spall liner (+0.075)
- Better turret armour (+0.125 for S1, +0.2 for SXXI)
- Better thermals (+0.1)
- Much better hull-down survivability due to said armour / ammo positioning and orientation (+0.125 for S1, +0.175 for SXXI).
- Smaller turret ring (+0.15)
but
- Has worse gun depression (-8 instead of -10) (-0.15)
- Has no ESS (-0.05)
- Has worse number of smoke pops (2 instead of 3), albeit covers a larger area in front. (-0.075)
- Worse round (576mm instead of M1A1’s 600mm) (-0.1)
- Less number of crew (3 instead of 4), meaning side-shots are easier to one-shot. (-0.15)
- Worse hull armour (no auto-ricochet unless angled and depressed) (-0.125)
- Front fuel tank can explode (-0.075)
Similar mobility as the M1A1 (0), but slightly worse if we’re talking about the S2 / SXX1 (-0.1)
Similar hull shot survivability as the M1A1 in front aspect for the most part. (0)
Faster repair time with 2/3 than 2/4 crew members but slower than 3/4 crew members (0).
Let’s look at the turret armour and survivability in more detail:
Red = Ammo rack / crew wipe / engine + turret drive most likely to occur. (one shot / two shot kill inevitable)
Orange = Gunner + Commander out and maybe one module (other than the engine / breech) most likely to occur. (You most likely can retreat back into cover, though you will have a 10s reload)
Dark Yellow = Breech + maybe one crew member (You most likely can retreat back into cover and repair, you will still have a 5s reload)
Gold = Loader / Commander / Gunner + maybe one module (You most likely can shoot back)
Light Yellow = Module damage
Against ~570mm (pretty common penetration at around ~11.7 - 12.0):
Assuming the M1A1 is taking only ~23 rounds
Assuming the Leclerc S1 is taking only ~23 rounds too
And assuming the Leclerc SXXI is taking only ~23 rounds too
M1A1’s ammunition is also more likely to explode due to the way it is orientated compared to the Leclercs, and possibly even more compact:
So overall, I’d say the Leclerc S1’s left cheek (from the enemy’s POV) is worse than the M1A1, though it’s not that much better since commander + gunner + FCS is still very crippling, and there’s less of a chance that the Leclerc explodes (although it’s almost guaranteed that the gunner, turret ring, and autoloader gets taken out).
The SXXI’s left cheek is a lot more survivable, even able to shrug off ~570mm pen rounds.
Overall, I’‘d say the SXXI’s left cheek is better than the M1A1’'s, but it’s slower by a decent amount as a result.
The right cheek for the S1(the same as with the SXXI’s) is much better than the right cheek of the M1A1.
The mantlet area is much more prone to getting one-shot though.
If we look at the Abrams and Leclercs from an angle, the Leclerc’s armour still can hold up enough to only cause the gunner / commander to get knocked out, maybe the breech too. Rarely does it go through the blow-out panels though, unless you aim for the commander / gunner view ports.
I’d say there’s a good difference in protection and survivability for there to be a 0.7 BR difference, or possibly the Leclercs moving down to 12.0.
0.3 BR difference between the IPM1 and M1A1 for ~80mm more penetration seems reasonable until you notice that its survivability and armour profile would be even worse at 12.0 despite the armour and survivability already being borderline useless (especially the armour) at 11.7 except in a full downtier.