Yeah I know, I just get triggered by people who deliberately decide to stay oblivious.
I respect confidence a lot, but overconfidence also just triggers me.
And Pangolin checks off both of these.
1 Like
Again like I said, active advantages are more sought out by bad players. It’s why you see people at WWII BRs using APCR because it has the highest flat penetration. The TKX and Type 10 are 12.7 vehicles, they can’t even see the base M1 unless someone uptiers it. The only 4 advantages the 2A4 holds over the base M1 is the vertical gun handling, armor, optical zoom, and ammunition. The base M1 has a higher power to weight ratio, more first stage ammo, better reload, speed, and mobility.
1 Like
After the T-80B got the 6s reload buff, it’s certainly closer now.
T-80UD/BE is arguably still much worse off, even after that change.
1 Like
The armour of the 2A4 is more well-rounded, and way less prone to autocannon fire than the Abrams.
That being said, the Abrams has better hull and turret cheek armour.
If they change the turret ring from 68mm to something more reasonable (~120mm at the least) then I’d say the Abrams actually has better armour.
Kinda hard not to get overconfident when fighting the most pathetic tank at your BR.
Active advantages are sought out by everyone.
No1 is gonna take a T95E1 over an M60A1 (AOS) for its faster turret rotation.
Maybe bad players who don’t know better.
That just reinforces what I said before. The Abrams is a jack of just one, having average mobility. It’s only really faster than the Leo 2 and the crappy minor nation tanks.
I’d also like to see volumetric be added to the turret ring. I’ve killed a SEP v2 with the Japanese Chaffee at point blank just by shooting there lmao.
2 Likes
It’s a hyper-mobile MBT with a 5s reload and great gun handling / gun depression, with a huge first-stage at the cost of a worse round than other hyper-mobiles. It’s armour is not great against autocannons but it’s good enough for a good chunk of other hyper-mobile MBTs, like the 2A4.
The turret basket affected it quite a bit (though probably even more so with the 2A4), as well as the fact that Russian / Chinese MBTs got a reload buff, though the regular M1 Abrams is still quite competitive.
1 Like
He’s gonna keep crying instead of learning and end up with a broken brain like the idiot in the other thread who has <1kd after 1500 games and resort to spamming russian bias everywhere 😂
1 Like
If everyone’s hyper-mobile, no one’s hyper-mobile.
You mean identical gun handling to 90% of the tanks at its BR?
It was extremely prone to losing its hori drive even before the turret basket.
Crying that getting kills is too easy???
It’s almost as if multiple vehicles at that BR had the same design philosophy of being “hyper-mobile” when they were built. The Abrams isn’t the best at everything, but it’s not the worst. It’s a jack of all trades vehicle. In every metric it has average to above average, with the ammunition being the only downside.
First point:
So any MBT in the game can have it’s characteristics broken down into 5 main components: Mobility, firepower, gun handling characteristics, survivability and armour.
- Armour wise, the M1’s are average to above average:
- Mobility wise, the M1’s are above average:
-
Gun handling wise, they’re the shared (together with Leo 2’s) #1 in the entire game thanks to it’s -10° of gun depression, 40°/sec turret traverse and 24°/sec vertical traverse.
-
Firepower wise they’re among the absolute best in the entire game, only lagging behind the Type 10 due to it’s 4 second reload.
M829A2 coupled with a 5 second reload rate puts it ahead of the Leo 2A5, 2A6, 2A7V, 2A7HU, Merkava Mk.3’s, Mk.4’s, Strv 122A, 122B+, 122B PLSS, ZTZ-99A, VT4A1, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-72B3A, Black Night, Challenger 2E, 3 TD, Ariete AMV, Leclerc, Leclerc S2, etc.
- Survivability wise it’s above average thanks to having the safest ammunition stowage, externally counted armoured fuel tanks along the hull sides that absorb APFSDS, better frontal crew layout than the Leo 2’s and relatively spacious interior.
Survivability isn’t as good as the Strv 122’s or Leo 2A7V’s, but nowhere near as poor as T-80BVM’s, Ariete’s, ZTZ-99’s, T-72B3A’s, etc. etc.
So we’ve got an MBT with:
- 8/10 mobility.
- 10/10 gun handling.
- 9/10 firepower.
- 6/10 armour.
- 6/10 survivability.
It’s no surprise that the bad players who tend to overrate the importance of armour think the Abrams is bad, given their lack of skill and ability to make use of the many advantages the M1’s have.
Second point: They’re generally under-tiered.
The M1A2 is the peer of the T-80BVM, T-90M, Leopard 2A5, 2A6, 2 PSO, Ariete AMV, Merkava Mk.4, ZTZ-99A, etc. etc. etc. yet all of those MBT’s sit at 12.3 - 12.7 whilst the M1A2’s sit at 12.0. This guarantees relatively frequent down-tiers where it doesn’t even have to fight it’s equals.
Third point: The M1A1 is picked over the T-80BVM in competitive tournaments, this is because mobility, reload rate and gun handling matter more than armour, because the armour will reliably be negated be basic weakspot aiming.
The M1A1 is already superior to any Russian MBT in the entire tech tree, yet the M1A1 sits at a full 1.0 BR below the T-90M, which is significantly worse than it.
Fourth point: Due to the M1’s being under-tiered and hand-held as a result, they’re incredibly easy to do well with if you’ve got basic map, positioning and weakspot knowledge, there’s a reason why my M1’s stats are on average higher than those of non-US MBT’s.
Why would I play a Leopard 2A6 when I could play an M1A2 that’s got superior firepower, same mobility, same survivability, same gun handling characteristics and same armour, except the M1A2 is 0.7 BR lower?
Fifth point: The M1 Abrams suffers from the same thing that the Tiger H1 suffers from, it’s built up a mythical reputation among the normies and it’s become one of the most attractive vehicles in the game as a result.
This means there’s an enormous amount of beginners/poor players that dominate your US teams. It doesn’t matter how fantastic a given vehicle is, if the player using it has no idea what they’re doing, they’ll be easy pickings for the opposing team.
That’s why there’s such an enormous gap in statistics between US M1’s and the Chinese M1, despite being functionally identical vehicles:
3 Likes
Except the only hyper-mobile MBTs are:
Vickers Mk.7 (effectively immune to autocannons, much better round, but 6s reload and much smaller first-stage),
2A4 (effectively immune to autocannons too, slightly better round, but 6s reload),
PT-16/T14 mod. (which is 11.0 and pretty uncommon),
MSC (which is 11.0 now),
IPM1 (11.3 and you don’t face it in GRB),
Type 90 (11.7 now, which means you can only face it in a full uptier),
and M1A1 (11.7 and you don’t face it in GRB either).
The rest of the 10.7 MBTs are pretty slow (Chally) or have way worse reverse speeds (T-80B).
It has the best gun handling + gun depression combo out of any of the hyper-mobiles I had stated above other than the Vickers Mk.7 and the other Abrams.
The Type 90 is special case where it could have better gun depression, but must first use its suspension controls first. Type 90 also has only 30 degrees per second of turret rotation speed instead of 40 degrees per second.
The rest of the 10.7s are either 30 degrees per second or 24 degrees per second (as with most Russian / Chinese tanks at 10.3 all the way to even 11.7).
With abysmal gun depression for Russian / Chinese tanks in particular.
I agree, which is especially the case when people shoot the turret ring.
It’s not great at surviving things but the point of this kind of vehicle is like a light tank with some armour – don’t rely on your armour and use natural cover / buildings that can be easily done because of your great gun depression, reverse speed, and acceleration.
I was also skeptical on how it would perform in the current META but instead of complaining more, I decided to play it for myself again.
Does this seem bad to you?
2 Likes
looks at your m1 aim
Suuuuuure buddy. in unrelated news do u want to buy my bridge on the moon?
2 Likes
This was my M1A1 stats after the BR decompression to 12.7 while it was still 11.3 😅
Safe to say it moving up to 11.7 was reasonable.
2 Likes
And I just clicked the wrong option and deleted my comment
Not sure what point you’re tryna make, aside from the Abram’s sole advantage being shared by other tanks that don’t have the Abrams disadvantages.
With Merkava and Chally skewing stats, nearly every MBT is above average.
Nope. Most MBTs have better cannons.
lmao no. You can literally destroy its engine/transmission and hori drive by shooting a track.
lemme fix it for you.
6/10 mobility (equal to most other MBTs)
4/10 armor (it’s better than the worst tanks)
4/10 survivability (comparable to ZTZs)
10/10 gun handling (not much actual effect on gameplay)
Even if I give it a 9/10 on firepower (it’s really more like 6.5) it’s still bad.
Nope.
Got that part right.
Comp is not comparable to casual.
Hell no.
Looking in the wrong place. Abrams accounted for prolly half of all my T-80 kills.
The IPM1 has far better armour than the T-90M, that’s why the IPM1 is better.
The 10.7 Abrams also has significantly better survivability than the Strv 122.
And the M1A1 AIM has better penetration than the Object 292.
See? I can simply reject reality and make utterly nonsensical claims too!
4 Likes
If competitive had no bearing then why do vehicles get changed in BR because of skilled players using them? The Abrams since their inception in game have only ever gotten uptiers in BR. The M1A1 got put at 11.7 because of skilled player performance for example.
1 Like
A vehicle being used in ESports is not the same as a skilled player using a vehicle in casual.
Yes, you have been showing us how good you are at that the past hundred comments.
Except skilled players (and those found playing TTS) DO use Abrams in casual!
1 Like