Good evening everyone, I have a question, how come the M1A1 11.3, despite having 38/800/101 mm armor, can easily be penetrated by an APFSDS with 450/550 mm penetration? This is not the case with the same M1 series (for example click bait) that not even the DM53 can penetrate the turret.
1 Like
Clickbait, AIM, and M1A2 series have depleted uranium in turret cheeks which are more denser therefore giving more protection
7 Likes
thank you so much :)
the armor scheme significantly changed, it is much thicker on the M1A1 than on the M1
but gaijin gave the composite on the M1A1 a stupidly low multiplier
1 Like
Still the best 11.3 by far.
2 Likes
yes now that type 90 moved up
but still annoying that it has a significantly worse composite multiplier than the base M1
Eh M1A1 mogged Type 90 anyway
I don’t really see it ever getting a better composite multiplier unless the 11.7 Abrams’ goes up to 12.0 and the M1A1 moves up with the IPM1.
2 Likes
ehh
more damage vs better reload
but why id argue for Type 90 is because the fuel tank eating rounds giving it really trolley survivability
idk, I can see it getting slightly better armor at the same br but not too much of an upgrade
1 Like
M1A1 is just nicer to play IMO
Has better gun handling, better shell, utility shells, better optics so you aren’t stuck with 9x base, etc
Type 90 damage model is ridiculous yeah, but M829A1 made short work of it.
1 Like
I get that, but still find it such a pain to kill a type 90 compared to everything else and the really good reload helps it
2 Likes
It’s an accurate multiplier. That 800 includes the air in-between the plates.
Type 90 was inferior to M1A1. More armor, marginally slower reload, hilariously superior round.
The M1A1 should go up to 11.7, but the M1A1 HC / AIM / M1A2 / Clickbait needs to go to 12.0 to keep M1A1 relavant.
We just need decompression for that to happen, with Top Tier ground ending at 14.0 or so by now 😅
1 Like
Honestly that entire br range i try to avoid just because of how compressed it is
Either im playing at 10.7 to avoid the top tier or im playing at 12.0 so that everything i face is the same br
1 Like
Even 10.7 is quite compressed imo.
You will face Type 90s and M1A2s / Clickbaits, which are much better than any 10.7 MBT.
10.3 is a bit more managable, but you still face M1A1s.
10.0 is pretty decent at the moment.
You’re missing the fact that the Type 90 loses all its speed in turns, has terrible traverse rates on its horizontal and vertical drives, and has a mediocre shell for 11.7 and even 11.3.
The M1A1 was way more versatile, while the Type 90 is good at one thing only.
Much better?
Mobility’s the same.
So that leaves ammo and armor.
Armor isn’t inherently better at 11.7 though there are examples of better armor, and ammo isn’t always a huge jump.
The best 11.7s for ammo are Ariete and Abrams firing DM53 and M829A2.
The rest are firing DM33 or 43 equivalent rounds for the most part.
10.7’s firing DM23 and 33 equivalent rounds.
Abrams armor over 2A4 is primarily a turret upgrade.
The most armored 11.7s are the T-80U and VT-4. The T-80U fires 3BM46 with a bit less mobility than other 11.7s. Though the VT-4 has great mobility and a 3BM60 equivalent round.
Like 2A4 vs T-80U can be at issue sometimes, but weakspots are still weakspots unless we’re banned from aiming down the barrel making parallax a thing to worry about.
10.7 to 11.7 isn’t as big of a jump as people think.
Well let’s compare USSR 10.7s and USSR 11.7s, and then American 10.7s and American 11.7s, and then German 10.7s and then German 11.7s.
First I will compare T-80B vs T-80U-E1, but I may compare 2A4 vs 2PL / 2A4M and M1 VS M1A1HC / M1A1 Clickbait later.
T-80B vs T-80U-E1.
The T-80U-E1 has similar mobility as the T-80B.
26.6 HP/TON instead of 25.6 HP/TON.
The 11.7 T-80 accelerates slightly better.
I wouldn’t say it’s a huge increase, but I’d say a T-80B with 26.6 HP/TON may be 0.1 BR higher than the regular T-80B (This would still make it 10.7).
The T-80U-E1 gets 3BM46 instead of 3BM42, which is a decent improvemnt, but nothing too crazy compared to 3BM42 (which is already a good round for 10.7).
532mm instead of 457mm, so 75mm more.
No new weakspots for any vehicles other than that you can now easily penetrate M1A1’s left and right cheek armour, as well as the Type 90’s cheeks (you can now ammo rack it too).
You also are able to pen armour at wider angles too.
I think a T-80B with 3BM46 would be 11.0 (or a 0.3 BR increase at least).
The T-80U-E1 gets Gen 2 thermals, so it’s much nicer to target tanks at range, as well as 40 degrees per second turret rotation speed instead of just 24 degrees per second and 4.4 degrees per second vertical targeting speed instead of just 3.3 degrees per second.
All of this makes its targeting and gun handling much better, but not as much as the T-80BVM’s.
If the T-80B had these, I think it would be a strong 10.7 or a weak 11.0 (another 0.1 or 0.2 BR increase or so).
Now the armour of T-80B:
T-80B’s UFP armour is ~320mm KE min to around ~430mm KE max, with an average of ~415mm KE.
It’s not bad, but isn’t going to survive anything beyond 120mm DM23.
Turret armour is ~420mm KE min to around 700mm KE max, which is not too bad, but isn’t anything special for Russian MBTs.
Now the armour of T-80U-E1:
T-80U-E1’s UFP is ~500mm KE min to around ~690mm KE max, with an average of 615mm.
This can block most shells in the game, other than M829A2, DM53, but you can still penetrate its UFP with the worse penning shells if you aim for weakspots (like near the towing lugs)
Turret armour is ~613mm KE min to around ~1060mm KE max, which means most vehicles cannot shoot the T-80U-E1’s cheek armour. They, instead, have to shoot the breech or the commander / gunner ports.
Side armour is around ~145mm KE w/ ERA instead of just ~100mm KE w/ ERA.
It’s not a big difference, but at high angles it can cause some weaker shells (especially that from autocannons) to non-pen.
Overall the difference in armour is incredible.
If the T-80B had this level of armour, I think it would be 11.0 / 11.3 (since the T-90A has similar armour, but without the reverse speed and acceleration. Instead it gets better thermals and 3BM60). (Or 0.3 / 0.6 BR higher than where it is at the moment).
The T-80B also gets a 7.1s reload unlike the 6.5s reload with the T-80U-E1.
If the T-80B had a 6.5s reload, I could see it increasing by 0.1 (a strong 10.7) or by 0.2 of a BR (a weak 11.0).
If I add all these benefits up, I believe the difference in BR the T-80U-E1 should be from the T-80B is 0.9 BR (at least) or 1.4 (at most).
I think it would be better if we just keep decompressing the BRs and put the T-80U-E1 (and other 11.7s similar in capabilities) to 12.0. Then most of the 12.0s should move to 12.3, etc…
Stuff like the Leclerc, ZTZ99A, VT4, Challenger 2E, Black Night, and Arietes can all stay where they are, since they aren’t causing any issues, nor are people complaining about them as if they were overpowered.
M1 Abrams and M1A1 HC is another (easier) example.
The M1 Abrams has the worst shell out of any MBT at 10.7, but has a 5s reload.
The M1A1 HC has the best shell out of any MBT at 11.7 (other than the abysmal Ariete), and still has a 5s reload (which is better than any other MBT other than the Type 90 / TKX (P)).
If the M1 Abrams had M829A2, I think it would be 11.3.
As for armour, the M1 Abrams has pretty good all-round armour, though most things past 120mm DM23 can penetrate it. The turret ring is a massive weakspot, though the UFP can auto-ricochet darts past ~300m.
The M1A1 HC has same hull / turret ring armour as the M1 Abrams, but it now has ~670mm - ~770mm turret cheek KE protection instead of just ~390mm - ~440mm KE protection with the M1 Abrams.
From being able to be penned by most rounds at or below your BR to being able to be non-penned by practically everything at or below your BR is a huge difference.
And the turret cheeks are a pretty big part of the Abrams – you can only shoot for the breech (or maybe the turret ring) if the Abrams is hull-down, unlike with the T-80s, where you can shoot their commander / gunner optics.
If the M1 Abrams had that level of turret cheek armour, I could see it being 11.3 (albeit M774 starts to really suffer past this point).
If the M1 Abrams was slower (24.8 HP/TON instead of 27.3 HP/TON), but had access to M829A2 and ~670mm turret cheek armour, I think it would definitely go to 12.0.
1 Like
The 11.7 variants are definitely an improvement over the 11.3s, their turret cheek went from not being able to take a hit from 10.7 ammo to occasionally shrugging off end-game darts.
1 Like