Like I said in my response, M1 reloads 20% faster than a Leopard 2A4 whilst only having 11% worse penetration. Nobody ever seems to complain about the Leopard 2A4 lacking in firepower so I don’t see why the M1 would be lacking either.
109 battles played in the M1 Abrams (892 battles across multiple M1 variants).
71% winrate.
6.5 - 1 K/D ratio.
3.0 K/M ratio.
You seem to imply that this only counts for the M1 and not for the countless other tanks it faces?
The difference in reload rate only grows depending on crew levels, an experted 2A4 loads 1.1 seconds slower (instead of 1.0 seconds) than a M1 with equal crew levels.
M1 Abrams isn’t gimped, people are just bad at the game and/or US mains that believe grass is always greener on the other side.
Also, I asked you to provide sources for your claims, since you aren’t presenting any I’d say the following goes into effect: ‘‘That what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.’’
Because that " 20% " faster reload means nothing when that " 11% " less penetration is what actually matters in an engagement atmosphere where he who shoots first often wins. Especially against an M1 that is practically paper mache because it’s hull armor and turret ring armor aren’t modeled properly.
Okay, cool. So you should understand the major shortcomings and argue for rectification rather than for the M1s to stay gimped.
Going back to 1; Having a negligibly faster reload rate means nothing in an atmosphere where he who shoots first will often win, especially when the tanks the M1 faces have very noticeably better rounds when it comes to penetration.
No it’s gimped. No matter how hard you try you can’t gaslight me. I’ve been playing this game for far too long. And you trying to dismiss be because I don’t keep links on standby doesn’t help your argument. But since you just want to keep gaslighting on this topic it’s very telling that you’re not worth engaging anyways, so we can just leave it at that.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t get M833. If its performance really ends up that much better just move it to 10.7 tbh I see no issue with that.
I’m not going to sit here and say the Abrams is bad, but I am going to say as far as starter MBTs go its probably the most difficult to learn with simply because of all of the funkiness it has going on with its armor and speed. Having a hull UFP that can bounce anything is great! Having a non-volumetric turret ring that then absorbs the bounced rounds is not. Being the fastest or one of the fastest MBTs at the BR when spaded is great! Struggling with steering and being kinda slow before spading is not. Again, it isn’t bad or anything- simply its difficult to learn and adapt to so getting to a good point where you can do well takes a while. Its performance is non-uniform [i.e. it has some good armor in spots but not always, it has good mobility some ways but not always, you can’t say any definitives “bad mobility good armor (like the T-72)” or “good mobility/gun mediocre armor (Leo 2A4)”], and that always ends up hurting people trying to learn how to use it.
But that’s just my opinion. Not trying to attack or hurt anyone here, so please don’t act like I am.
What even is the reason to claim the M1 is in need of rebalancing?
Like I said before, it is among the best performing MBT’s at it’s BR and has been for years. It’s also not drastically exceeding it’s peers to the point where it needs a BR raise either.
I simply don’t see any reason to fiddle with a vehicle that’s performing well.
What does that have to do with the armour on the M1 Abrams (1981)?
I really don’t have any idea where you’re going with this.
Firstly, those vehicles do not use the same armour composition. This is the equivalent of using photographic evidence of a T-90M’s internal armour to model a T-72A.
Secondly, there’s better sources available which provide us with actual hard data points on the performance of the armour. There’s also numerous documents which contain protection requirements during it’s development cycle.
Thirdly, people are already giving Gaijin harsh words for using the Swedish Trails documents to model the domestic M1A2, yet you’re proposing to substitute that with yet another export vehicle’s armour?
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.
