Great, anemic damage should be a con of M1 so it’s working as intended.
3 Likes
I went looking at other tech trees And I was surprised by how prevalent DM-33 / 3BM42 & equivalents actually are at 10.7 & 10.3 which completely invalidate the turret armor, let alone the rest of the schema of the basic M1, well past 2km.
An additionally contributing factor is that there is a fairly small quantity of vehicles and lineups in the 9.7~10.3 range, so getting even partial downtiers are fairly rare, which makes things worse since facing opponents that might actually struggle to deal with your armor is near non existent, and even then they still have HE-FS (e.g. 3OF26) & GLATGMs (9M112) that still reliably one shot via the doghouse.
Honestly having looked at what other nations have available to them in the 10.x ~ 11.7 bracket I’m not even sure that M900 would be enough.
2 Likes
Which is nice, as M1 or 2A4 were never really armor focused vehicles.
Vehicles that have armor as their focal point, such as T-tanks and copies are actually more affected by the fact you can see high powered rounds at that BR, as it’s nullifying one of their biggest pros.
I’m not against M1 with M900, I’m only against M1 with M900 at 10.7.
2 Likes
tbh Gaijin should introduce a system where vehicles can gain access to their better round depending on the BR match they get.
For Example when M1 Abrams are in 10.0-10.7 BR match current M774 should be enough.
But when it got up-tier match to 11.0-11.7 M900 should be available for them.
What is that even supposed to mean? Yes they were, they are a significant and deliberate upgrade in comparison to the M48 & M60 that precede them, the Improved Protection Arrays developed for the M1E1 (would go on to become the M1A1) were even backported in short order (to produce the M1IP configuration), shortly after hulls enter Full rate production.
Even M900 doesn’t go though the entirety of turret of a T-80B / T-72B at point blank, And M774 doesn’t touch much more than the Mantlet, drivers port and Lower plate.
I can’t say the same of 3BM42(if you account for the +/- 10% Rng on penetration, even the Side opposite the doghouse (covers the loader) is at risk) or 3MB60 at 2km vs the basic M1, and considering you can find 3BM42 readily available at 10.3 when the M1 is at 10.7, there is little point going Hull down since they still penetrate the turret anyway or use 3OF26 / assorted GLATGM and aim for the doghouse, and you still need to aim for the lower plate.
The basic M1’s entire armor layout is effectively completely overmatched by threats you can expect to face, and so offers no protection, the only hope is that they whiff into the UFP, and it doesn’t go though the turret ring or they don’t simply aim center of mass and only damage the engine (with the erroneous inclusion of the Hydraulic reservoir, in the turret drive system, this has become even harder).
Yes sure, if uncontested when flanking and punishing mistakes the M1 does better, if not the best of the three designs due to the ~ 2RPM advantage over the others, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that it is categorically the worst in an extended engagement (the M60-2000 (M60-120S, in game) is a straight upgrade at a lower BR in this respect due to using the M1A1’s turret, and has access to far better ammo, M829A2 as found on the 11.7 M1A2. I guess its the 2S25M counterpart at a much higher BR) or brawling, and with flanking being so map & game sense dependent, is it any wonder it performs poorly in the hands of people that don’t know what they are doing, or at least those that don’t have a significant edge vs their opponents?
So the M60-2000 (10.3) should be sent to 11.7 right? It has all the relevant advantages of M1A2, Same ammo, good thermals, same reload, same turret armor, a similarly redundant hull array.
Should the 2S25M get sent to 12.0 due to access to 3BM60?
I think that that would probably cause issues, it be better if it was done in reverse where better ammo is removed in downtiers.
I’d argue that layouts that M774 start to have issue with at the moment start at 10.3 / 10.7 (T-27B / T-80B), and considering their access to 3BM42 they won’t have issues with the M1, M833 improves things over M774 out to about 600 meters, M900 about 1.8km putting them on a relatively level playing field.
If anything the fact that the M1IP is a whole 1.0 higher the base model is odd since the only significant changes are to both ammo (M900) and modifies the turret to be resistant to 3BM42 that proves the point, it doesn’t help that by that point other nations have DM42 & 3BM46 which again make the Improved arrays redundant out to 2km.
3 Likes
They have better armor than M48 or M60, but you’ll find much more armored vehicles than those two at around their BR. They have decent armor but honestly other things are what makes them really competitive at 10.7.
T-80B going from having pretty decent turret and hull armor to having no hull armor and meh turret armor makes it more-or-less equal in terms of protection from M900 as M1 has from 3BM42.
This would be fine if 80B had same mobility, gun depression, gun handling and reload speed, which isn’t the case. Vehicles having tradeoffs makes them balanced.
This is false.
T-tanks don’t have flat roofs so it’s easy to kill their crew while their gun isn’t even exposed yet.
Read above, darts can kill T-tanks without them even being able to shoot back and that faster reload makes them post up on an angle faster.
Such an idea would only come in mind of people that compare tanks by a single metric, I’m not one of those. Tanks at such a low BR having powerful rounds are compensating for that by being below average in other areas.
M1 with M900 at 10.7 would negate most armor of it’s contemporaries, which would nullify it’s only con outside protection. At that point it would be the best 10.7 overall by a large margin.
Should T-90A get sent to 12.0 due to access to 3BM60 ?
It’s pretty clear powerful rounds are there as a compensation for other faults.
IPM1 is 11.3, not 11.7.
M900 is a huge upgrade over M774 and on a M1 platform that should easily increase it’s BR by a single step. Other step is improved turret, although IPM1 is in a weird state right now since M1A1 got a reload buff for some reason.
1 Like
And said advantages depend on getting the drop on your opponent, which relies on having superior game sense, or counter picking them when go after teammates and so is not reliable, or useful in extended engagements, where your opponent is locking down a sight line.
Going forward they aren’t that different, especially considering that the later T-series variants has their own transmission mapping, instead of using the generic variant as most other vehicles do.
It is worth mentioning the raised engine deck, and the elevation lockout making it impossible to shoot at opponents on level ground in a significant sector of the rear hemisphere of the M1 & Leo’s turret traverse. Which can be impossible to work around if you get tracked and spin or can be maneuvered around while waiting for the ~15-30 seconds it takes to fix them.
Manual Reloads are a balancing factor, and we have the cyclogram for the various autoloaders, sure they aren’t operating at their theoretical absolute maximum rate, but then there are other issues with quantities of the types of ammo that could be carried and others (e.g. unable to store APFSDS sequentially) implementation factors.
It doesn’t reliably kill the breach as well as the crewman you aim for, and Commander override is faster than the M1’s reload, if not aced. so still has a good chance to expose you to return fire, and you risk bouncing or striking too high since its a small target.
And so what stops them from counter-peaking the M1 if the shot doesn’t disable the breach?, The turret won’t impact the mobility of the Tank so nothing stops them from trying.
And when it comes to having good firepower, most other downsides can be worked around by using specific positions on maps that offer good sightlines on high traffic areas, which is not something that can be solved, other than to not transit said lanes of fire, which is not always possible, due to map design, assuming that you know they are there beforehand.
Having the opposite issue where Firepower is somewhat deficient significantly limits what you can do, and so you get forced to find alternate routes and go flank your opponents which again relies on superior game sense, which is obviously why the average player struggles, but that those that know what they are doing, can do really well. But then they would probably do similar or better in other options, that can cover for things not going exactly to plan.
But that still doesn’t change anything about the fact that the solution to said issue is still the exact same, aim roughly at the center of mass, and 3BM42 / DM33 solves the issue for you. Sure you might have to play slightly more conservatively and not try not always rely on armor to solve issues.
And its not like M833 is that much of an improvement over M774 anyway.
It’s not like the M1’s would be giving it any issues, and its not like 3BM60 is that much worse than M829A2 that said 12.0 M1’s have.
Are they actually issues with the tank; or how the average player uses it?
Sure, but M833, what the topic is requesting isn’t.
So you would agree that the addition of M833 to the basic M1, a much worse round than M900, wouldn’t qualify for a BR increase?
Because reload rate doesn’t exactly help you if you don’t manage to get the second shot off? Which is generally caused by a few issues. and the issues are obviously endemic to the M1 family considering it impacted both 105 & 120mm equipt variants (including the M60-2000).
2 Likes
**We all should work harder, become a rich man like elon musk so we can afford to create another combined arms game and make our favorite country the stlongest bro. Imagine one day a very rich Chinese man bought gaijin stock and become a majority shareholder, what will happen to USA again? omg…
**
So true, he does have a big say in what gets put in, lol. And with the way we’re feeling towards them right now… Let’s just say it’s not going to be top priority to emphasize our Military power.
us mains and their braindead takes strikes again ☠️
abrams is perfectly balanced as it is
2 Likes
“Some people have a different opinion than me so they must be arguing in bad faith”
CQC maps we have in the game are favoring fast tanks with great reaction times as there’s plenty of angles you have to cover.
Game sense and knowledge is also required to mitigate cons such as bad gun handling, reverse speed and gun depression.
Being fast in both ways is really helpful.
NATO hump is an disadvantage but unless you’re using IS/TOG tactics of driving in reverse I don’t think it’s effects are even close in importance to having good gun depression in frontal 180.
Gun handling as in horizontal/vertical guidance speed.
It is reliable if you know where to shoot. Left for commander, middle for breech and right for gunner, you can easily bully them with that. By the time Commander takes control, M1 is either shooting another round or is well behind cover tanks to it’s great mobility.
Properly aimed shot will disable the breech. Also, M1 doesn’t need to expose much of itself due to really good depression, so shooting and going back in reverse while 80B is struggling to get his gun on target thanks to it’s 8.3 gun handling.
If this was so simple then all high-pen vehicles that can lolpen enemies would be meta, but that’s not the case in reality.
No one is forcing you to do that, as M774 can penetrate anything you see from any angle.
And where did you get this idea from ?
M1 with M774 has been at the same relative BR for years now. This wouldn’t be the case if average player was struggling in it, because it would either go down in BR or received ammo buff.
You can’t improve your final reload speed, no matter how hard you try. Having 5s vs 7.1s of reload on a flank is a big deal, considering in 21s 80B can fire three times, while M1 can fire four times.
Some vehicles rely on their armor as it’s their biggest pro.
So, should T.90A move to 12.0 since it has 3BM60 ?
Clearly a tank related issue, since other contemporaries can do it better.
Only thing I’d agree to is the fact M1 doesn’t need any more help as it’s more than fine where it sits right now.
That’s not true.
Having an ability to shoot faster will help you and save you in many situations.
1 Like
And yet maps keep being made smaller, and having routes removed or blocked, and with said changes less people are needed to be able to cover off the remaining options.
The Soviets & Russians that, set the specifications for, designed, modify and maintain said tanks, clearly value the torque that the reverse gears provide & acceleration of the existing profiles more, and won’t make the sacrifices needed to provide sufficient room for a larger gearbox / transmission to fix the issue, or reprofile the gear ratios to fix the issue.
Probably because It’d be quite a bit of work, and probably yet another set of hulls they would have to support, though with shrinking inventories, the opportunity cost of such a move is probably significantly reduced these days from what it would have been in the '80s.
The same way Gaijin won’t add DU hull arrays or Spall mitigation features to appropriate M1’s even though there is evidence to support that they do in fact exist or were options at one point in time.
As stated, you get tracked, you lose the ability to rapidly traverse the hull, and adjust the lockout sector relative to the threat until it is repaired, which can easily prevent you from returning fire or covering a avenue of approach that can be exploited, or get caught side on to a threat that you need to rapidly respond to so necessitates rotating the hull.
What exactly are you doing at such short range where this is an issue and rotating the hull towards the threat to increase the rate is not possible?
It has to expose the weakspot that is the doghouse, and upper turret cheeks (which are practically paper at combat distances against most threats), and gun shield so its not like that there is nothing viable to shoot at even if the M1 is perfectly hull down and not also exposing the Turret ring.
Because not all maps and positions are deigned to be useful to all options, with a fleshed out lineup there should be something suitable, to other positions that remain viable, also it’s unlikely that maps do not take some vehicle limitations into account during the design phase.
So care to explain why it can’t go though the T-90A’s UFP? M774 is definitely the outlier for APFSDS performance at 10.7 where its performance means that penetrable zones & angles are far stricter than others.
Does it have sufficient penetration to function, sure. But in order to do so you are putting much more work in to do so.
Two places.
The first is that Gaijin have repeatedly handed out sequential buffs to the M1s; the universal Fire rate from 10RPM to 12 for both 105 & 120mm turreted members, selectively introduced better ammo to various M1s, which we know are actively used as balancing tools to avoid decreasing their Battle rating. Which would indicate that they are an outlier in terms of efficiency, and subsequently their true stats aren’t that good when compared to others.
The second is that; the average player isn’t actually all that good, legitimately what do you think their K/D and KpB is? and as the tree that gets a lot of attention from newer players, the US is likely to be very much on the lower end.
It’s closer to ~5.7 vs 7.1, expecting people to have both maxed and aced crews is not realistic.
It’s more likely that you would use some of that time delta refining your aim after the first shot didn’t kill, and if you were doing things properly when flanking you’d never get into said situation with more than one target since you would sort them for the threat they pose first and foremost, not whatever walks into your sights first.
If it were to become significant issues the BR would drop / be raised, or the offending article be removed, the Rate of Fire reduced, etc… We have a BR system to account for that, so why not use it.
it might struggle, I don’t have any experience using it, so I shouldn’t really comment on it. But you clearly seem to think it would be capable so I don’t see why not, it at least has ammo going in its favor.
Maybe, but many of those situations also have a significant element of risk, because in most cases if you can shoot multiple targets and really se the rate of fire, its likely that they can also shoot you, or someone has wiffed a shot and gives you an opportunity to capitalize, which if you shot first. Or still have a round loaded, and a functional gun still offsets the reload in your favor.
Having a more reliable armor layout is certainly harder to deal with / is more useful for the average player since people need to actively work around; for example the Jumbo(s), wouldn’t be that a whole BR higher than their similarly armed M4 counterparts.
If you die to the return fire due to poor amour, reload rate won’t help. It’s far more important to get the first accurate shot off, which is harder to do if the area you have to shoot is is smaller.
2 Likes
105mm turret Abroomz (both M1 and M1IP) have had 12RPM since their introduction into the game:
5.8s reload on a non-expert Lv. 150 crew (5s if aced)
1 Like
Yes that is exactly what i meant to say.
Welp it just an example i gave. As i said M1 Abrams could get M833 as it won’t change what it can/can’t pen with M774 (M774 which is overperform and already has its bug report accept) M833 will sit nicely with M1 Abrams when M774 got fix.
So it ain’t just me to notice that Gaijin keep removing hulldown spot on new and rework map.
Example being North Holland . Which i keep getting version with half of the map block out (lmao)
Or that Sands of Sinai which block out entire high ground hill on the East side.
You’re still playing a CQC map that looks like a rat’s maze.
I don’t really care what they do IRL, I’m just stating their cons in the game.
You can repair tracks while still being able to turn your hull. Moving will instantly cancel out the repair.
Rotating the hull simply isn’t possible in certain scenarios, like being in tight spaces.
Also, by rotating the hull you might expose your side armor which is a no go, especially for armor-heavy vehicles.
Vertical guidance speed is also a problem when traversing uneven terrain. Not being able to get my gun on target killed me plenty of times.
Everyone has to expose themselves when peeking. But M1 has great mobility and reverse speed paired with great gun depression, so the time it is exposed is minimal.
Every map has chokepoints which can be controlled by vehicles with extremely high pen values, shutting down any advances in that area.
Can it penetrate T-90A from any angle ?
I’ve used both M774 and DM23 and they are pretty much the same. You’ll still aim at same spots regardless.
That’s the point of cons, you have to work to go around them. Vehicle without a single con isn’t really balanced properly.
AFAIK basic M1 always had 5s reload speed.
Click-Bait got better ammo but not the basic M1, that’s interesting.
What if M1 isn’t struggling at all ?
Global average should be around 1 K/D.
All higher tier vehicles/premiums are popular among newer players, no wonder Gaijin is cashing out on that fact.
Expert crew reloads at 5.3s and is pretty common for people to have those for their vehicles.
Who said my first shot wouldn’t kill ?
You can have the side of two enemies at the time, you kill one and the other one has set amount of time to get his awareness to know from which angle to hide or where to point his gun to.
In case of 80B vs M1, that enemy has ~2s more time to react and hide/engage, which is quite a lot of time for higher tiers.
Plenty of armored vehicles at 10.3 / 10.7 already lost some of their efficiency with Gaijin adding more and more high powered rounds at that BR range.
Never said that.
T-90A is a perfect example of a vehicle that’s being held up by it’s strong round as a way to balance out other factors.
In order to disable most tanks at that BR you just need to aim around/under the gun, it’s literally a cheat sheet for average players.
3 Likes
I’m sure that maps like Sinai, Hurtgen, Eastern Europe, Frozen Pass all have lots of routes and aren’t just you moving between lanes or needing to cross nearly flat terrain with no cover.
So accidently tapping a key even a frame early resets the entire operation, it’s far more reliable if you actually start the repair manually, which takes time to halt.
Pretty sure there is an option for this in the options menu somewhere, where it stops shifting the point of aim during suspension movement, you should try toggling it, it may help.
If you are doing things properly the destruction / mission kill of the threat in question with the first shot provides the downtime you need to return to cover.
You can solve this by simply using different spots that aren’t quite as steep, and so are actually take the limited gun depression into account. It’s not useful cover if you have to advance over the berm in question exposing the LFP for any tank.
Another option is to utilize the Dozer blade functionality to dig in a little more if you have the time to spend preparing and one available, which should improve the slope in question.
They don’t need to have extreme values, only those high enough for the amour of the threat, and with the way 3BM42 / DM33 completely disregards the M1’s armor, its much more prevalent.
Will it do useful damage in all penetrable spots from the given range?
Not really, they’re in the same ballpark yes but M833 is closer but still worse, especially if we ignore caliber and barrel length differences between the relevant guns, and it’s impact on post pentation spalling;
For completeness I’m including M833 & M900 as well.
@ 10m
M900: 522,441,302
DM23: 410,346,247
M833: 395,333,228
M774: 372,314,215
@ 2,000m
M900: 486,410,281
DM23: 376,317,217
M833: 369,311,213
M774: 343,289,198
The con of the M1 would still be its practically useless armor layout, since it isn’t able to do much about most threats that can be expected to face even from CE standpoint, let alone KE threats.
Might be another one of the M68 equipt tanks I’m thinking of then, might be the M1128 or the M<60-2000 changing from the dev server.
Unless your monitoring system is effectively airtight or the changes that are made will not impact one another, making simultaneous changes tends to be a bad idea, especially if going balance hunting, and the use of a reactive system / Feedback loop.
By all available metrics its pretty obvious that it is, the only question is if it is enough to qualify for additional assistance or not, or if it remains within the range Gaijin deems acceptable.
It’s lower around 0.75~0.95, due to non attributable deaths (e.g. Teamkills & Out of bounds timeout, drowning, sympathetic detonation, Crash, “J” out, etc.) accumulate over time that are not counted towards a kill for another player, but do show up as part of the death count, this will only grow over time.
If you did why would reload rate matter? They can’t shoot back if they are dead, so sequential reloads don’t matter.
In that case, it’s a risky situation to be in, reposition before opening fire or begin backing into cover to minimize exposure, or wait until one cannot return fire before taking the shot at the one that remains. You don’t have to shoot at the first thing you see the second you are able to.
In a 2 vs 1 you can’t expect any one thing to carry the day, even if you flank you still need to put effort in, especially if you are aware of potential issues.
It’s not though, 11.0 can only face at most 4x 12.0s at a time so it effectively has a protected BR in comparison to 11.3, so its better off than most of it’s neighbors (in a BR sense)
And I always seem to get that wrong more often than not, especially at range where the lack of digital zoom hampers precision I find that if more than 5 degrees to the hull are offered the Lead Sprocket is much more reliable against most tanks.
Then again having a ping that normally ranges between 200~350 makes things worse than they could be.
2 Likes
Ah another duplicate thread when there is already multiple iterations of this exact thread already up on the forum which have already covered the exact same points. I do love me some unnecessary spam.
3 Likes
Sinai not quite as much, but others you mentioned do have lots of cover and have capture points inside rat’s maze. Luckily 10.7s can’t ever see Frozen Pass.
Depends on the situation really, if you’re sure it’s safe then manual repair is okay, but if you have enemies around I think it’s better to lose 10-15s on a cancelled repair than it is to die.
I’ll still need to do rapid up/down movements.
That’s why gun depression is useful. If you don’t have it, you’ll have to work around it with finding other spots and stuff, which takes experience.
Extreme relative to the armor they’re facing.
Sure thing.
~40mm of pen isn’t really that much. It’s even lower if you consider 60 degree values.
Single con while being top of the class in everything else, that’s not happening.
Basic M1 existed years before Click-Bait happened, but it never received a better round or BR change.
What are those metrics and where did you get them ?
Surviving a battle with a tank and killing enemies with it will increase that back up.
Someone else might show up ?
Backing out and repositioning vs getting a free kill is a big difference.
T-90A doesn’t need 12.0 to struggle. M1A1 at 0.3 BR higher blows it out of the water.
2 Likes
That all also happen to have power positions that look down onto the capture point(s) in question, often at 90 degrees which can enable someone posted there to look down fire lanes and get sideshots on incoming players freely making approaching said point difficult.
Is this not the same map, with a 10.7 lineup?
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/278562430538656693
It’s not always possible to do so in time, and with the raised engine deck the geometry is harder to achieve so may preclude returning fire anyway.
To do what, exactly shoot at aircraft?
It’s not really that hard to recognize when you will have to show your LFP to get angles on a target, and it still impacts the M1, to a lesser degree. even 10 degrees isn’t enough to make use of every possible position, and is pretty standard across most nations but then things like the HSTV-L has 17 degrees.
Also I don’t remember if the -5 degree limit takes the slight negative camber of the turret ring that most T series members have, into account.
I’d agree it’s not that much but it’s enough to overmatch the armor of common threats more reliably, and in your opinion would be worth an immediate increase to the BR so the improved performance however slight is clearly not insignificant.
The Leo 2A4 has better optics (3-10x vs 4-12x), and would retain superior amour layout, ammo & after armor effects, and is very competitive in terms of maneuverability (difference of 0.1 HP/t, 27.2 vs 27.3. and 6kph forward and 7kph reverse, so pulls ahead by approximately one hull length for every 4 seconds spent at top speed ), and has the same gun handling as the 2A4 at 60 degrees per second.
The 2A4 can optionally take a Dozer where the M1 can’t (an option; the Combat Dozer Blade does exist but it isn’t implemented) So in many aspects the M1 is not Best In Class, or at least not by a significant amount outside the reload rate (and in an uptier the type 90 has a 4 second autoloader so it’s not guaranteed to always get a second shot off first against all opponents).
The performance of M774 was revised when it was moved to the penetration calculator, so its arguable if it constitutes improved or worsened performance. But it has changed
In effect decompression has impacted what vehicles it will face so it has most definitely been fine tuned even if it hadn’t moved. Which impacts balance.
Depends on the specific claims I’m making, doesn’t it. Since not all data strongly supports all possible claims that I could make.
But it’s fairly rudimentary (First year university / Late high school level) Statistical Analysis (e.g. Variance & Standard deviation, relative performance, T-Tests, etc.) of my personal performance in the M1 vs other vehicles.
Sure if I could be bothered, or had granular access to various datasets (e.g. Controlnet or thunderskill) I could perform stronger tests, but would it actually change your, or any else’s position on various issues? I don’t think it would so there is little point to expending the additional effort, since being right on the internet isn’t actually worth all that much or would somehow influence Gaijin to adjust things, since we don’t know what their bounds are for making adjustments, or what actually goes into their efficiency metric (outside it being directly based on SL/h) so isn’t even what they are looking for anyway.
Too many people think that just because said datasets are not anything close to a census of all players they are somehow useless, when you don’t actually need that many to observe trends with some accuracy, though the lack of complete randomness in the sampling does obviously limit the specific claims that could be made / supported by the data.
And that’s a risk you have to take regardless.
Is it really free if you put the effort into finding, and reaching a suitable shooting position undetected?
2 Likes
Yes, plenty of maps have flanks that if not guarded can win a game on their own. M1 can also guard/push those routes with it’s great mobility and farm some easy side shot kills with great reload rate.
Frozen Pass and Finland aren’t the same. On Finland you can rush that “passage” between A and B and farm hordes of lemmings side-on approaching both caps.
It won’t always save you, but it’s pretty good to know since it will give you much more chances to fight back.
Here’s one example for you.
This is a pretty nice spot to get couple of free kills on unaware people early on. The problem here is that you can get flanked from people on A, and getting your barrel rotated and elevated is pain in 80B when compared to M1.
Showing more than necessary is always sub-optimal, especially in vehicles with sub-par reverse speeds. You can get tracked without showing LFP, and without enough gun depression you’re done for.
That’s true, but knowing which spot you can effectively use takes skill.
Also, working with less available spots in total means you’ll have less options to engage targets, which can be worked around with skill somewhat.
I’ve used both and M1 has way better gun depression, regardless if it’s true or not.
Their optics are pretty similar so I can’t decide which one is objectively better. Something like Ariete with 8-12x scope lacks quite a bit though.
2A4 doesn’t have better armor layout than M1. It also lacks two external fuel tanks in the front so nothing’s there to soak up shots. It also has fairly small ammo stowage in the turret, so if you want to carry multiple ammo options you might end up with some ammo in the hull.
That round wasn’t changed because of M1’s stats.
It remained in the same relative position to it’s contemporaries.
It’s really hard to draw any conclusions from your stats as you mainly play US and haven’t really touched any relatively close contemporary of M1. Also, looking at data from a single player only might give you weird results, so that’s why Gaijin is working with averages of hundreds of players.
In my opinion data on TS is gathered from individuals that are above average, so whatever numbers we see there are probably higher than what Gaijin sees in their complete data. But at least this is true with every vehicle on there.
Indeed, but going from 7.1s reload to 5/5.3s will give you better chances of getting something else done.
By free kill I’m mostly thinking about kills on completely unaware enemies that you had an easy side shot on with ample time to aim. As your reload speed improves, your enemy will have less time to react and get aware, if you know what I mean.
1 Like