My experience in playing the 10.7 MBTs… in addition to the M1 suffering more from the decompression than other vehicles did as it was moved away from the lighter armored MBTs into the heavily armored MBT part of the game pretty hard.
A good player could work around having to use the BT-7’s gun… this does not mean anything.
If this is all you’re getting from my words then you’re not understanding what I’m saying at all and I don’t think I have the patience to walk you through it
Rage bait
It’s either rage bait or he’s genuinely trolling.
Who?
The OP
There you go.
M1’s armor is far from being bad, at least in comparison to 2A4’s which is M1’s closest contemporary in terms of abilities. Giving M900 to M1 would be a huge step up over 2A4 which is already one of the best 10.7s. There’s literally no reason to do so.
And here’s that M774 kill.
I never really thought that lacking ~40mm of pen compared to DM23 is something that detrimental, especially since the reload speed is faster. You basically trade a bit of penetration for reload, which looks fine to me.
Ah yes, good old full uptier suffer argument. KPz-70 also has a pretty bad round and it sees 10.3 spam regularly, I think better round is needed and let’s just forget about all the pros it has over it’s contemporaries.
Either all 10.7s receive a slight buff, or none.
Yeah let’s pretend M774 is closer in performance to BT-7’s gun than to DM23.
Even if you had DM23 equivalent round, you’ll still aim at the same exact weakspots as you would with M774, so I have a really hard time understanding your woes.
funny enough another tank that needs a round buff as it was nerfed for no reason…
not going to argue further with you, you are set in concrete with your thinking. You also aren’t… very good… at comprehending.
Yeah it totally needs better shell to compensate for it’s amazing reload speed, mobility and gun handling.
Looking how you’re laser focused on a single metric makes me believe that you’re the one that lacks comprehension on how pros/cons system works and how ground vehicles are balanced, otherwise you wouldn’t make such egregious claims.
“Gaijin please buff the round of the KPz-70, it’s the only thing stopping it from being totally broken at it’s BR” - USA DontUnderstandHowBalancingWorks
Because it’s identical to the M1IP minus about 40-50mm of KE protection. And the M1A1 is the strongest 11.3 in game and should be moved to 11.7.
Armor is literally the only thing the T-72B is good at. Let me list the downsides:
-Terrible gun handling
-Terrible optics
-No thermals
-1 Reverse gear
-Poor mobility
-Poor reload
-Autoloader module
-No blowout panels
It literally is only at its BR because of its shell, and the fact it has a good UFP thickness. Stop spreading propaganda that the T-72B is better than it is.
That is your personal skill issue, the M1 is my best tank at 10.7 with the highest K/D. It fights the same enemies it did when it was at 10.3, besides 9.3 tanks (which were already very strong, idk why Gaijin moved up 10.3 but whatever).
America teams are bad enough at 11.7, no thanks. And if you weren’t aware, 11.7 doesn’t only get downtiers and often gets uptiered to 12.0, which the 10.7 Abrams can never fight.
What a… nonsensical argument lmao
Ehhh no. Sure, it’s strong and i can say that,but it doesn’t deserve 11.7
Not my problem
Those can’t always save you,you know. You can still get blown up,albeit it’s rarer than other tanks
Yeah,no lmao
Your priblem that you don’t have the nerves to do it,you’re just lriving my point :)
If it had M900, yeah.
5 second reload with excellent mobility and top tier firepower, it only lacks armor but so do a lot of minor nations top tier MBTs. Compare it to the Ariete AMV, Leclerc, Challenger 2E, etc which are all 12.0.
It will be when you actually play the thing
Better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.
False dilemma fallacy/ad ignorantiam
So if it had the M900 your argument is nonsensical,hence the reason to bring it on par with the IPM1 is nonsensical, thanks!
Human reload. Of all the tanks you cited i can say that all but one don’t deserve 12.0,and that one is the Leclerc. The Leclerc has an autoloader, meaning it will always fire every 5 seconds, something the Abrams with half a crew can’t do
But you don’t need them. I mean,the autoloader is hit regardless of where you shoot because that’s the weakpoint,unless it can’t be hit (like exposing only the turret)
If i face an abrams on its side,i will never hit its ammo not because there’s the blowout panels,but because the center of mass is always the best thing to go
But there are downside to it , don’t talk like there are not. Cherry picking another nation just because they have A or B doesn’t help in this case.
Just because you haven’t been saved by them doesn’t mean you don’t need them. If we going by the side then should consider all scenario , if you going by “center mass” then that apply to every tank , not just the abram
Other nation beside the big three, would like to have a word. Also using best shell in the game def not helping your case here
This is false
This is also false.
With M900 it would be too similar to the M1IP to warrant a different BR, thus would be 11.3 and subsequently ruin 10.7 America’s lineup.
If the M1A1 were 11.7, it would still be lower than Leclerc, which would imply it is worse in some ways.
Again, better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. I’ve had many times in tanks with blowout panels (Type 90, Leclerc, Abrams, Leopard 2) where the blowout panel has saved me, don’t discount it just because it hasn’t saved you yet. You’re not factoring in human error, ie misplaced shots or just people being dumb and not knowing where to shoot.
I’d say it should go up then as it’s literally perfectly balanced at its current BR and a perfect side grade to the 2A4.
Giving buffs to a tank that doesn’t need it is just silly.
Abrams after losing two crew will still be able to play, meanwhile Leclerc will be in the hangar.
Abrams is far from being the fastest tank, and he is often late and very often his shell cannot penetrate the side of the tank, and if it does, it does not cause damage. Abrams is the only medium tank on its BR that has a completely penetrable front. Try to pierce the forehead of the turret of a Soviet tank on this BR, you will need a projectile with a penetration of 800mm, and to penetrate the turret of an Abrams you will need a projectile with a penetration of 400mm. You are always getting punched.
Sure,there are.But reload rate is not one of them for sure
I have been saved many times from them,but it’s just a gimmick that is very useful only on longe range engagements and near a cap zone
If your panels go off and you are not in that scenario, the enemy has a good chance of finishing you in a single blow,and if that doesn’t happen,you just wasted your last round and another enemy is surely coming
It’s the same thing with the autoloader: if your shot is inside the breech and the enemy is approaching you either get clowned on with a single blow or you defend yourself but would probably fail the very next encounter because you can’t reload.
Having an upgraded protection that can grant your turret to withstand at least some situations is no way identical
I can repeat this until the end,but the Abrams at 10.7 CAN’T WITHSTAND ANY TOP SHELL AT THAT BR IN ITS FACE,while other tanks can and will do
It is not balanced, plenty of people i’ve seen that have better results with the 2A4 compared to the Abrams
Nice anti-US
