1- M833 is still lower pen than DM23.
2- Same turret armor. 430 for M1, 440 for 2A4.
3- They’re the same size when accounting for Abrams’ turret ring.
4- Both about 122 when not at ricochet angles.
5- Abrams is 15 seconds to 60kph, Leopard 2A4 is 14 seconds to 60kph.
6- Hull ammo is optional on both Abrams and Leopard 2A4.
7- 50 cals ain’t going through 10.0 IFVs.
2A4 would retain its advantages over M1 Abrams if Abrams got M833.
Yet all the best players in this game claim reload rate is the more important metric.
Yes, my 71% winrate, 6.5 - 1 K/D ratio M1 is clearly indicating major shortcomings.
It desperately requires major buffs so that I can finally reach that 90% winrate and 10 - 1 K/D ratio.
And if the M1 shoots first, it wins extra easily thanks to it’s massively quick follow-up shot?
You forgot: ‘‘Trust me bro’’.
(X)M1 Abrams protection requirements:
To resist 115mm APFSDS at 800m distance (XM579E4 used as simulant), 161mm Penetration Capability @ 60° (332mm effective LoS)
In-game M1 achieves 350mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc against APFSDS.
Right cheek: 398mm (M1), 316-404mm (Leo 2A4). Left cheek: 442mm (M1), 440mm (Leo 2A4).
If we’re going to take other stuff into account, then I’ll feel free to count the Leopard 2A4’s gunner’s sight, upper hull and lower hull, all of which makes the Leopard 2A4’s weakspots significantly larger than those of the M1.
Huh?
Lie, 13:52 seconds for the M1, 14:73 for the Leopard 2A4.
False. M1 can take 44+1 rounds of ammunition without filling the hull rack, Leopard 2A4 can only take 15+1 rounds.
I want you to tell me what weapon I used to kill that IFV:
People not understanding that non-volumetric armor being fired at with volumetric shells is the cause of volumetric infinite armor bugs for the 100th time…
The Abrams turret ring is already extremely trolly because it isn’t volumetric.
Armor being made volumetric is what removes volumetric bugs and it becomes weaker because there are no longer issues with armor of constant thickness overlapping in areas where its thickness should be far lower.
That is to say - making the turret ring volumetric would only weaken it, at least from the standpoint of “volumetric” bugs. Volumetric non-pens are a result of volumetric shells, not volumetric armor. Volumetric armor is what removes volumetric bugs, and it exists for that purpose.
To be fair, it’s currently 65mm in spots, that definitely shouldn’t be the case and allows for autocannons to penetrate it.
I personally don’t have too many encounters with autocannons and it also wouldn’t help against 120mm+ APFSDS, but the point still remains that a conversion to volumetric would at least make the turret ring autocannon proof via raw thickness.
That would depend on how they implement the turret ring volumetric.
I feel like it could be a monkey’s paw and create weaknesses, just like it did with the Challenger 2 breech rework, where it became thicker in areas, but also thinner in a few select spots.
Test drive only has all modules unlocked if you spawn the tank in the Reference configuration. And even then - it isn’t all the modules, or at least it wasn’t before, only a few select ones.
To be clear: I am asking for a volumetric fix not because it will magically make it stronger, but because Gaijin will hopefully be forced to fix THIS much bigger issue
Which makes my life living hell when having to fight BMP-2Ms or PUMAs or 2S38s, vehicles that in theory shouldn’t be able to do that much damage to the area yet end up knocking out my crew
I die more to Big Guns then Autocannons, yes, but the Autocannons do enough damage/disable me often enough for it to be considered an annoyance that I would like to be fixed
Your M1 is obviously crewed.
I made sure neither my M1 nor Leopard 2A4 were crewed, as to keep the crew factor identical.
You cannot guarantee identical crews on separate tech trees.
you want a western vehicle to have something good? Nah only russia gets good stuff
we cant have their winrates drop, they must have unkillable ka50/2 and su25sm3, t80bvm and t90m,2s38 bmp2m
