You’re acting like a lack of thermals is a special downside for it, when the only 9.0 MBT that actually has thermals is the M60A3 TTS. And I’d take the A1A1 over that any day. Gen 1 thermals aren’t even that much of an advantage regardless.
The lack of an LRF is a weakness, but it’s not a crippling one. It just downgrades the gun to simple “Easy to aim”, instead of instantaneous to aim. You can still absolutely make that work if you just use flanking to get places where you can get the drop on enemies, which the mobility absolutely allows it to do.
Mobility, good APFSDS and a stabilizer is literally all you need to work at that tier. LRF helps, but you can work around that. Thermals are nice, but not nessesary (especially gen 1).
It’s the combo of great mobility (Both straight line and reactionary), a good firing platform, great gun handling and a good round that makes the A1A1 a decent pick at 9.0. No other platform matches this. Even the wheeled TDs pay for their mobility and LRF with poor reactionary mobility and poor gun depression.
Non-IFV vehicles at ~8.7 will smoke AM-1 just as quick as they would A1A1. Yeah, AM-1 has more protection to autocannon fire but that’s about it when it comes to armor benefits it has over A1A1.
This is simply not true, A1A1 is much more mobile than AM-1, both forwards and especially backwards.
Most MBTs at 9.0 don’t have thermals. Having thermals is more of a commodity than norm at that BR.
Another false statement. DM23 is one of the best rounds MBTs at 8.7-9.0 will get. Meanwhile, 3BM25 is a bottom of the barrel round that’s far worse than DM23.
“worse than DM23” as if an APFSDS round that can pen any tank at the BR range it faces is “bad” because it doesn’t have the absolute best possible stats
“more mobile” yes it has no armor, no it’s not fantastically better. It’s still on the Leo 1’s engine.
“smoke the AM-1” yeah sure if it’s a 9.0 or a very specific 8.7 with APFSDS, those are not common and completely ignores the BR range this tank faces by being at 8.7 instead of 9.0
Differences between those rounds will get more and more apparent with increased range. Also, 3BM25 has very poor angled performance and could struggle against sloped armor at that BR. So yeah, everything I said is correct, 3BM25 is one of the worst rounds at that BR, period. You can pretty much feel how superior DM23 is to 3BM25 in actual gameplay.
It is still much more mobile than AM-1, which is the target of this whole thread. It’s pretty simple my friend, A1A1 feels like a go-kart when compared to AM-1.
It’s very uncommon to find a 8.7 MBT without a dart, what are you on about ? Plenty of 8.3 MBTs will have darts powerful enough to deal with AM-1 frontally without much issues as well.
We need more decompression to solve the full-downtier issue. But, even then, AM-1 should never be the same BR as A1A1.
Moving AM-1 to 9.0 would place it only 0.3 BR below other popular premiums like L/44 and XM-1, which are far better than AM-1, so difference between them should be more than one BR step.
“more and more apparent with increased range” more and more situational
“It is still much more mobile than AM-1” and the TAM is more mobile than the Leo A1A1 yet it’s 8.7, the mobility isn’t insanely better
“very uncommon to find a 8.7 MBT without a dart” with LRF, with stabilizer, with armor, with thermals
“We need more decompression to solve the full-downtier issue” yes
“But, even then, AM-1 should never be the same BR as A1A1.” the tanks were both historically designed to face eachother, and per ingame performance have similar effectiveness, except that the 8.7 Russian tanks are granted a full lineup while the German 9.0 tank is forced to use 8.7 tanks to pad the lineup
While doing the research for APFSDS I realised 3BM25 only has something like 2mm more penetration than DM13 APDS, the stock round of the A1A1 and things like the Cent 10.
And yet here you are malding about Laser Rangefinding.
You can spin it however you want, but, one thing is constant, stronger round = better. Why are we still even discussing this anymore ?
Have I ever said TAM should be at 8.7 ?
You missed my point dude. Literally 99% of MBTs at 8.7 will be able to deal with AM-1’s armor effortlessly, which means it’s armor is close to meaningless in plenty of cases.
Game balance > historical accuracy. One tank being at 8.7 and another at 9.0 means they will face each other in vast majority of matches, so I have no idea what you tried to say here.
As far as I’m concerned, 8.7 and 9.0 are similar BRs, so why are you still crying your eyes out over a single BR step ?
A1A1 deserves to be higher than AM-1, it’s just better, simple as.
Most vehicles when fully downtiered will be really strong, so increasing their BR just because of that is hilarious. As I said before, AM-1 and A1A1 should never be at the same BR, so if former goes to 9.0, latter should move up to 9.3 as well, and at that point it will start seeing 10.3 vehicles like 2A4s, Abrams’, T-80Bs which are in the league of their own.
Now, you would need to push those tanks to 10.7, where they would start seeing 11.7 tanks and cycle of BR increases continues.
It seems like you want BRs to be decompressed but only for selective vehicles, because you have some kind of a personal vendetta.
There is no larger power gap between uptiers / downtiers than the 7.0-9.0 range
A 9.3 tank uptiered to 10.3 can still full penetrate any vehicle it comes across it just has less mobility which is only an issue on specific maps and situations
A 6.0 tank fully uptiered again faces tanks with better armor but not necessarily better fire power and are generally able to penetrate enemy tanks with side shots / cupola shots ignoring some Russian heavies which are given an IS-2 gun making them “balanced”.
A 7.0 tank fully uptiered is facing stabilized guns and firepower that can fully penetrate them
An 8.0 tank fully uptiered is facing a stabilized gun / LRF / APFSDS / IR / Speed / ATGMs / Neutral Traverse / Wheelie Boys
The tree needs to be split making 8.7 the max possible limit for cold war and stop matchmaking with 9.0-10.0 range making 9.0 the new beginning floor
This is the only way to properly balance the era as it was rapidly evolving technology and things were left behind
If you are going to counter point “the game is meant to be asymmetrical look at real life with the first gulf war” then I will again note the T-55AM modernizations occur at the same time as the Leo A1A1’s therefor the two tanks by said logic should face eachother
If we are discussing the game wholly through a balanced game perspective then both tanks should be the top of their respective trees for the cold war bracket and neither should have to face uptiers, they should be top dog for that era
Mobility is always an issue. It is not “Specific”. Mobility allows you to take position faster, allows you to flank.
Next, 10.3 tanks all have better mobility, better gun handling and thermals. So there is a quite huge gap.
Mobility always matters and always doesn’t matter. If you know there is a common flanking position and there will be people there before you get there then you are able to adjust your plan of attack so you aren’t caught up. Specific maps suffer more from this than others. CQC maps are hated by players but do offer some of the best counter to this specific part of the game. Yes you still have flanking potential but eventually you’ll be facing the guy either on this street or the next over. Yes this is a simplification. Yes mobility matters. No mobility doesn’t guarantee you a win. No the T-55AM’s mobility is not as good as the Leo A1A1’s. No the mobility isn’t such a huge difference as to justify a 0.3 BR gap compared to the other differences between the tanks.
Both tanks should be top dogs of their BR bracket that being late cold war.
The game should restrict uptiers from that range to modern tanks like the XM-1 / T-72 which have such enormous advantages over tanks just a 0.3 BR lower than them.
Difference between L/44 and 2A4 is quite huge. Latter has much better mobility, gun handling, while also having better reload and better ammo compartmentalization . 2A4 doesn’t have a single disadvantage when compared to L/44, it’s that big of a difference.
It’s even worse if you compare T-64A with 2A4.
It’s much easier to push top ground vehicles to something like 12.3 or 12.7. That change alone would further reduce the compression across the board, not only in the range you care about.
8.7 and 9.0 face each other all the time, I already said that to you. That extra BR step just acknowledges A1A1 is a better vehicle overall, that’s all.
Mobility is really important, because it lets you take corners first thus enemies will be the ones who are peeking, and you will have a massive advantage in that engagement.
Mobility + reload + gun handling + gun depression = more than justified 0.3 BR gap.
It is in fact not that at all. First of all its upgrade package to T-55A. Second of all compared to actual T-55M it doesnt have normal APDSFS (literally is same as APDS found on 8.0), its speed is capped at 50 with horrible 8km reverse gear. It’s armour at this BR is effective only against autocannons. It sure can bounce shots in full downtier or almost full downtier yet thats normal for such BR differences in WT (plus it has huge weakspots).
Leopard A1A1 is much faster vehicle to arrive and to respond. It also has slightly better (IMO) survivability, and has gunner commander system which every in game T55 lacks. Oh and its not stuck with bad APDSFS shell like T55s (except T55M) are.
T62M is on same BR as Leopard A1A1 and it still loses in speed, reload rate, but at least fixes poor penetration. I wish T62MV model 2022 got added at BR of 9.3(only changes to T62M being ERA and poor 2nd (or 1st im not sure) gunner thermals. Wouldnt be broken since a lot of light tanks get those earlier than 9.3, its armour stops being effective, and it gets thermals and ERA to compensate for higher BR. Would be perfect to the game, we have MBTs like Leopard A1A5 and Leo A1A1 (L44), XM-1 (both versions) M60A3, Type 74 G Kai.