i dont have any legal documents, and I’m not going to cry about russian bias, I’m just annoyed that tanks arent getting their available ammunition types because another doesn’t have anything to rival it other than the OBJ 292 which is really damn fun to play
I find that it is perpetrated more by high tier NATO players because they want to have the best vehicles. Or they are making excuses for poor performance.
1 Like
Yes, that is also the case.
If I was a bad player, I’d be blaming American bias for my T-80BVM deaths.
And German bias for my M1A2 SEP deaths.
1 Like
be careful everyone, there are German mains in the chat that argue the M1 Abrams doesn’t need any improvements. they go around to every forum about the m1 Abrams and hound everyone in chat with mediocre positives that suggest its overpowered. they even go as far as making everyone feel stupid and unimportant in the most polite manner.
meanwhile, they go back to posts about the leopards being heavily underpowered and they need critical buffs to be almost competitive. but when you look at their service records in their profiles, you’ll find they have considerably more time played in germany than they have in american. in addition, if they have played american, they’ll have more time played in any other american vehicle aside from the M1 Abrams.
i won’t name names, but they are here in the forum. including other forums that argue the same thing.
careful not to be influenced by their biased propaganda and stay true to the idea that the M1 Abrams needs better ammo.
3 Likes
M1 is a pretty good tank at 10.7, it doesn’t need better rounds.
4 Likes
Considering the anemic damage of M774, M833 probably would have saved me at least one probably two in the engagement at ~3:00 with the T-80U in the following replay, the only reason I got so far is because the first T-90M almost completely whiffed with BM-60, and said T-80U had a GLATGM loaded for whatever reason (seriously, why take a 28x GLATGM, 12x HE & 3 APFSDS loadout? ) and aimed for the very edge of the turret cheek instead of the UFP, mantlet or doghouse.
Considering the rest were shot in the side / rear M833 wouldn’t have made that much of a difference.
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/276325199255345051?public_key=UOWlwLc8M1wOUKRPSEy9
3 Likes
I also wish the T-72 get better ammunition to offsets its terrible reverse speed, I’ve lost count on how many times I died due to reverse speed, I think the 9.3 T-72 needs 3BM42 bro it will compensate for the poor reverse speed, and the 10.3s ones need 3BM46 because I don’t know how to play it at 10.3, I always die bro sometimes no kill, must be the tank suck.
3 Likes
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.
2 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).
1 Like
**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.
1 Like
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