Does the IPM1 still deserve its 11.3 BR?

[SadRIPer]

Nerfing a russian vehicle ? Are you crazy ?

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

I doubt Click Bait is the reason those tanks stay at 12.0, as HC isn’t performing that better in the last several months.

Well, the large sample size of 2,824,287 games (according to statshark) in January alone now matches the same KPS as the even larger sample size of 3,893,534 games (again, according to statshark) of the T-80U-E1. This is after the T-80Us got a 6s reload so I believe that may partially be the reason why that may be the case.
I assume Gaijin is balancing the rest of the 12.0s based on the Clickbait since it’s the same tank as the HC and effectively the same as the M1A2, and the AIM (for the most part) while also having the highest sample size.

@MotorolaCRO

Compare their stats to the likes of 2A5 or 2PL sitting at 12.3, and it should be obvious all those vehicles could share the same BR.

Yeah, the 2PL especially isn’t that great, though that’s to be expected considering it’s a squadron vehicle (not a top tier tech tree) and is arguably overtiered.

@MotorolaCRO

If we don’t count the last few months because of BMPT spam, TURMS at 10.3 had worse stats than CB at 12.0.

Hah I guess the fact that the TURMST is overtiered and Clickbait is undertiered helped it out enough.

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

Sorry but 9.3 levels of mobility isn’t decent at 10.3.

Hardly 9.3 😅
Most, if not, all tanks at 9.3 (NATO / Japanese / Chinese) have overall better mobility than the T-72s (the reverse speed especially), though the top speed (and to some degree acceleration) is above average compared to the 9.0 / 9.3 M60 / Centurion line of MBTs.

[rainy2000]

@CmdrVince

So… the Sabra with its 6.7 Mobility should be 8.7 then, yes?

I think you’re misinterpreting what he’s trying to say.

The T-72AV TURMST has ‘9.3’ levels of mobility but can also have ‘10.7’ levels of FCS / firepower that can make up for it. (Though I’d say the 9.3 / 9.7 armour drags it down to 10.0)

If we look at the Sabra, the ‘6.7’ levels of mobility may be true (though the reverse speed alone makes its mobility less problematic than the T-72’s), but the firepower and gun handling is arguably ‘11.3’ levels, and the armour is ~9.3 / 9.7 levels (especially considering it can hull-down quite often due to the -9 degrees of gun depression).

@CmdrVince

Again. It’s not that I’m aiming at bad spots. I’ve run them through the replay and it says it should have penned. That said, the game has some pretty inconsistent mechanics, so it doesn’t always work when it should. Hence the luck part.

Could you show us a video or screenshot of it?
I can understand not one-shotting or doing any damage to it (because of the BS roll-of-the-dice fuel tank mechanics)
but I’m having a hard time believing that you non-penned it unless you hit some overlapping plates that cause volumetric BS (which isn’t very common with the TURMST, at least from my experience dealing with them) or if you shot the outer turret cheeks:

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

I assume Gaijin is balancing the rest of the 12.0s based on the Clickbait since it’s the same tank as the HC and effectively the same as the M1A2, and the AIM (for the most part) while also having the highest sample size.

Yeah, I think CB and it’s premium status is the reason those don’t move up to 12.3.

@rainy2000

Yeah, the 2PL especially isn’t that great, though that’s to be expected considering it’s a squadron vehicle (not a top tier tech tree) and is arguably overtiered.

Seeing 2PL at a higher BR than Click Bait is seriously funny.

@rainy2000

Hah I guess the fact that the TURMST is overtiered and Clickbait is undertiered helped it out enough.

True, I can’t understand how someone can complain about TURMS being even remotely strong in 2026.

@rainy2000

Hardly 9.3 😅
Most, if not, all tanks at 9.3 (NATO / Japanese / Chinese) have overall better mobility than the T-72s (the reverse speed especially)

I just love when people try to handwave all the negatives of a vehicle just to strengthen their narrative.

[CmdrVince]

@rainy2000

It only really works when you manage to get hull-down with it, or if the enemy tank doesn’t have a round capable of penning ~380mm of RHA, which isn’t a lot considering most 9.3s already get ~390mm besides the ultra-mobile tanks like the XM-1 and Type 16 (FPS).
Most, if not, all 9.7s, 10.0s, and 10.3s / 10.7s (besides the Abrams) have ~390mm of pen.

I’m going anecdotal at this point, which shouldn’t (and won’t) count, but I’ve never really had an issue when not hull down. Its really an easy vehicle to play and I usually hop in it after playing Italy for a while because, for me, it is a chance to turn off my brain and just play.

@rainy2000

If you compare it to the TTD, sure its turret cheeks are much worse, but its UFP is effectively just as good, and it actually has mobility, gun depression, gun handling, and reload (assuming it’s aced) to make up for it and it (was) sitting at 10.3… now 10.0.

CmdrVince:

The TTD is flat. That certainly doesn’t help. Also, not having the turret cheeks be as armored are huge because being able to front pen it even hull down in 95% of it’s area is mega unfortunate.

@rainy2000

I agree, but its armour isn’t the main thing it should be relying on, unlike for the T-72AV,

This is true, sort of. The Abrams relies on its speed, and I understand that (although my stats won’t support that thanks to me using that vehicle to learn top tier 4+ years ago). The T-72AV can still rely a good bit on its armor, in my experience more so then you are letting on, but I do understand the idea that the TURMS isn’t amazing. Although I do think it is fine where it’s at.

@rainy2000

I think that helps a lot in long-range maps and if you have good gun depression (which the TURMST doesn’t), though it isn’t as effective in close-range maps, which are most maps to begin with.

The TURMST doesn’t have great depression but their are plenty of spots on plenty of maps where you can make it work. It certainly isn’t as universally useful on these maps, and it certainly isn’t a tank for maps like White Rock Fortress, but it works well on places like Fire Arc, Fields of Poland, Sanai, and the like.

@rainy2000

Other than the fuel tanks (which is a gamble) and the gunner + commander being on opposite sides of the turret, I don’t think you’re surviving much especially when most things can penetrate and kill at least one crew member every time, let alone detonate your ammo since you can’t get into hard cover (whether it be hills or buildings).
You effectively have to gamble that the person misses their shot and that you can reload in time for a potential second encounter.

Which at this BR especially thanks to Premium spam is much less of a gamble and much more of a known. If I see a KVT, 9/10 times I know I will be able to defeat it. Same with a PzBtl or Christian II. I understand that a skilled versus a skilled player the TURMS would lose almost every time, but the thing is, especially at this BR, most players aren’t skilled.. Which you also cover.

@rainy2000

I don’t think the T-72A’s armour is particularly strong at 9.3, let alone any BRs higher, though it’s good in a downtier.

My experience with the TURMST is that its armor performs drastically better than the T-72M1, which to my knowledge is just an export T-72A with some extra plates that the T-72A can research in game. I think the ERA brick modelling is a bit jank, which is part of what makes it so powerful- but then again, if they fix the modelling, I understand the point.

@rainy2000

The problem with adding K1, FCS, and 3BM42 to the already lacklustre UFP armour of the T-72A (coupled with no improvement to acceleration, reverse speed, nor top speed) makes it extremely squishy and extremely punishing.

Again, anecdotal, but in my experience that isn’t really the case. But again, anecdotal. In good hands it works well, and I have decent performance in the TURMS.

@rainy2000

I think you’re misinterpreting what he’s trying to say.

Yeah, I re-read it. That was 100% on me.

@rainy2000

Could you show us a video or screenshot of it?

I do not have them right now. I can try and get them. But IIRC it was one of those jank double plate shots that should go through, but don’t because of Volumetric issues. I don’t shoot the outer turret on a TURMS because that is a waste of a shell lol.

@rainy2000

The T-72AV cannot play offensively (lacks the hull armour / gun handling / top speed / reload) or defensively (lacks the gun depression and the reverse speed) at 10.3, let alone 10.0…

10.0 maybe, but at 9.7 the tank would just be too strong IMO. I firmly believe that it is fine right now at 10.3, but clearly my performance and opinion does not match that of everyones. Which is fine.

Edit: Sorry for the long and late response. Just wanted to do it right but didn’t have the time or energy to do so till now.

[rainy2000]

@CmdrVince

10.0 maybe, but at 9.7 the tank would just be too strong IMO. I firmly believe that it is fine right now at 10.3, but clearly my performance and opinion does not match that of everyones. Which is fine.

Have you played the T-72B / T-72 (1989) / T-64B recently, by any chance?
If you do have them unlocked, of course.

[CmdrVince]

@rainy2000

Have you played the T-72B / T-72 (1989) / T-64B recently, by any chance?
If you do have them unlocked, of course.

No, currently working on the T-72B. But most of my focus right now is on the Ariete(P) as I want to have experience with what is (arguably) the worst top tier in game, as I think it will help make me a better player. Or make me quit. Which either way, win win.

[rainy2000]

I see.

I’d like to see if playing the T-72B / T-72B (1989) might change your perspective on things, though if you’re going for the Ariete (P) first then that’s fine. Also the Ariete (P) isn’t actually too bad from what I remember, though I wouldn’t be opposed to it going to 10.3 or having its reload get buffed to 5s.
The 11.7 Arietes are okay but they need to go down to 11.3 to be worth while. The 12.3 Ariete is (for the most part) pretty abysmal, though at least it isn’t 12.7. I think it should go down to 12.0.

[CmdrVince]

@rainy2000

I see.

I’d like to see if playing the T-72B / T-72B (1989) might change your perspective on things, though if you’re going for the Ariete (P) first then that’s fine

I will certainly get to it. I do see that these tanks all have better armor and a better reload- only lacking the FCS of the TURMST while being the same BR. So I think I get the point you are trying to make. But again, I will give it a try to fully see the point.