Not wrong, but that’s only because the round is pretty good. The armor protection and mobility is pretty trash except against default HEATFS/early ATGMs (it is a budget design to keep the old M60s alive in urban combat against insurgent level threats after all).
If you’re having to turn your turret that far for that to matter to save yourself, you’re already done for. At least Russian tanks can engage to the rear quarter.
You’re comparing apples to oranges because you have to show yourself to engage a target. Which, again, the M1 cannot do because it’s fighting modern MBTs that were produced a decade after it was retired with rounds that were produced over two decades after it was retired while being limited to the APFSDS it came out with in 1980 and doesn’t get either of its actual combat APFSDS.
Ah yes… the two tanks, if any, that they get… that’s not a lineup meaning either you bring in lower BR tanks to fill your roster or you drag said tank into a higher BR lineup.
US - M1, M10
Germany - Leopard 2A4
RU - T-80B, 2S6
GB - Challanger Mk 3, Vikers Mk. 7
Japan - NONE
China - NONE
Italy - Ariete (P), Leopard 2A4
France - Leopard 2A4NL
Sweden - Leopard 2A4, CV 90 Mk. IV
Israel - NONE
Have you ever taken it into higher BR matches recently then or just claiming things to claim them?
They’re not.
Hyperbole never makes for a convincing argument.
My match history at top-tier is:
- Vietnam (significantly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Sands of Sinai (significantly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Breslau (larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Golden Quarry (significantly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Normandy (larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Tunisia (significantly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Fire Arc (significantly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- North Holland (slightly larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
- Japan (larger than 1.5km x 1.5km)
A IPM1 will be doing 55 km/h before the T-90A even gets to 45 km/h.
That’s not even mentioning the astronomical reverse speed difference, nor the difference in top speed, reverse steering and neutral steering.
Mobility is also more important than armour in War Thunder’s meta.
You thinking the mobility difference between these two vehicles is so insignificant says more about your lack of knowledge concerning these two vehicles.
If you get shot at you’ve played poorly.
That goes for any tank at high tiers. If you get shot at in a T-90A you’re usually dead as well, whether that is your breech being knocked out, LFP causing instant death or a simple shot to the sides.
Another mistake you’re making it pretending that you’ll fight the T-90A perfectly head-on.
74% of my engagements with Russian MBT’s allow for the sides to be hit, completely bypassing their frontal armour.
And yes, the IPM1 is significantly better than the T-90A.
I’d rather take a hit to my loader in an IPM1 than to my autoloader in my T-90A.
Poor logic.
The T-90A has awful mobility, it does not get to dictate the engagements.
The IPM1 has fantastic mobility, it gets to dictate the engagements.
That is precisely why mobility plays such a massive role in War Thunder’s meta, it’s an active advantage as opposed to the passive advantage which is armour, which fully relies on your opponents having poor aim (which is outside of your control).
1 Like
Cool, and I’ve been getting maps like Abandoned Town, Normandy, Cargo Port, Mozdok (Domination #1 specifically), Finland and Advance to the Rhine a lot more than any large scale map. Hell, I would LOVE to get maps like Sands of Sinai and Fields of Poland more often. Also, and this is playable area not including spawns and red zones, Normandy is 1000x1500, Breslau is 1000x1500, Golden Quarry is 1200x2100 (which is barely larger than 1500x1500), Japan is 900x1350 and North Holland is 1250x1750.
Cool? Talking about the M1 Abrams, not the IPM1 so idk what you’re going on about.
Again, are we really going to pretend this is the same?
If that’s your argument, why does the T-90A get 3BM60 then and not just 3BM42? They can just flank the Abrams. And again, talking about the M1, not the IPM1. Is reading comprehension not a thing in today’s world?
No you aren’t as not everyone is aware of everyone else’s positioning.
Predict where it’s coming from and just shoot it before it can react, easy.
Again, date of introduction doesn’t mean anything in this game.
Oh no, bringing 10.3 light tanks/AAs to 10.7 is such a tragedy.
You just need to get over the fact M1 with M900 will never stay 10.7, which is why it isn’t added in the first place.
1 Like
Then it isn’t to save yourself but to get a kill… congratulations on not understand situations.
Again, apples to oranges seeing how I talked about pushing someone and you’re going on about something that doesn’t relate to the discussion at hand.
Still a point to bring up to talk about the imbalance in technology. Sounds like skill issue on players rather than the vehicle itself, which is poor balancing.
Oh wow, like the only thing US gets is an upgraded M60 and the M1128 at 10.3 (which has M900… funny that IT gets M900 but the M1 can’t even get M833). Whereas Russia gets the T-72B, T-72B (1989), T-64B, Osa and the Strela… which they also get 3BM42 which didn’t come out till 1986. If they got the same treatment, they would be limited to 3BM22, which is STILL a better APFSDS than M774.
Why not? The M1128 is at 10.3 with M900.
It’s almost as if the M1 Abrams is a massively superior platform compared to the M1128.
It’s almost as if the M1 Abrams is a massively superior platform compared to the T-64, T-72B '87 and T-72B '89.
M60A1 RISE (p) to 10.7 when? It’s a 1988 vehicle after all.
But in all seriousness, please don’t pretend that dates of introduction bear any relevance to game balance. The T-72B’s and T-64B are incredibly mid vehicles right now, them having 3BM-42 doesn’t magically make the M1 Abrams not the best all around 10.7 MBT anymore.
2 Likes
the abrams is not the best 10.7 mbt it has terrible armour and the worst round at the br id much rather take a challenger 1 or a 2a4
1 Like
-
It’s literally got the same armor profile as a light tank except against Chemical Warheads with what it fights… You literally have to play it as a light tank. But you would have had to play it recently to know that (your last match with it was at least over a year ago).
-
Ahahahahaha, we being serious? I’d argue they’re better seeing how seeing how the T-72Bs (1985/1989) were designed to equal or outperform the M1 and equipped with the Mango round, which was specifically designed to counter NATO NERA that was being used at the time. I can literally play them almost mindlessly and end up in the top 3 on my team. Fun fact, you can upgrade the T-64B to the 1985 modernization and it ALSO gets 3BM42 as that was a round it could use later in life. Notice how Russia gets all the doodads it got IRL but the Abrams doesn’t?
-
I mean… it’s a 1978 armor design with poor ERA added in 1988 and it’s also limited on what ammo it can run (as it could ALSO use up to M833 but doesn’t get it). But let me guess, you’d argue that it “doesn’t need it”?
If date of introduction doesn’t matter, why does US tanks get artificially limited in the rounds it can use to literal non-wartime rounds whereas Russia gets rounds designed APFSDS generations later? 3BM42 outperforms M774 by 85mm and 3BM60 outperforms M774 by 208mm (which, the Abrams literally can’t defeat even at 60* on the LOADER side, which is the thicker cheek). Explain why it’s balanced the Abrams has to play like a light tank because Gaijin makes it fight ammunition that it literally never saw AND that the front fuel tank creates spall on the Abrams whereas Russian tanks don’t? Don’t believe me? Just ask the community about “Driver, engine” on Russian tanks
EDIT: addition. Just to bring this up some stats. Mine v community
T-64B KD: 1.92 v 1.31; K per Battle: 1.68 v 1.14; WR: 50.87% v 49.4%
T-72B KD: 1.71 v 1.05, K per Battle: 1.42 v 0.90; WR: 51.49% v 48.8%
I’d argue I know a thing or two about these vehicles and how to play them smartly. Keep in mind, these are more recently developed statistics compared to yours seeing how I’ve been grinding the Russian TT recently. I know the current gameplay and comparison between nations.
Nearly every single 10.7 has poor armour protection, that includes the Leopard 2A4, Strv 121, Challenger Mk.3, Vickers Mk.7, Ariete (P) and M1 Abrams.
In fact, the M1’s armour is at least better than that of the Leopard 2A4. Now that I think of it, the M1’s got better armour than the majority of those.
And the fastest (sustained) reload at the BR.
Reload rate is also more important than penetration.
Name me a 10.7 MBT that has equal mobility to the M1 but has equal/significantly better armour.
With you sitting on a 1.4 K/M ratio that evidently isn’t true.
Of course context suddenly matters when the argument is no longer in your favour.
Classic example of double standards being used when it comes to arguments about historical dates and matchmaking/vehicle balance based on dates.
Because it’s what keeps them balanced.
The M1 Abrams is already the best all around 10.7, if it received newer ammunition it would just result in a BR increase, which would be redundant as you’ve already got the IPM1 at 11.3 for those that want an M1 with higher penetration, so you can’t complain that you don’t have the choice either.
Oh, and by the way, that IPM1 is another one of the absolute best MBT’s relative to it’s BR in the game.
Now go ahead and compare the M1’s acceleration to that of a T-64B, T-72B or T-72B '89.
How about reverse speed?
How about turret traverse?
How about neutral steering?
How about vertical gun traverse?
How about gun depression?
How about reload rate?
How about practical top speed?
How about reverse steering?
How about ammunition stowage?
How about crew count and layout?
How about thermal sights?
Oh wait, we must pretend that only penetration values are relevant to a vehicles’ performance!
the challenger 1 and the 2a4 both have better armour protection than the 10.7 abrams and the reload and mobility is the abrams like only upside m774 is a horrible round especially in a full uptier and the armour is WAY worse than the 2a4
Better turret, worse hull.
It’s situationally better, and also why I said ‘‘Majority’’ and not ‘‘All’’.
Better*
You say that as if DM23 doesn’t only have 9% better penetration.
DM23 doesn’t allow you to penetrate any more significant areas in full uptiers than M774 does.
more speaking of l26 and 120 dm33 on the ariete (p) is actually amazing in a full uptier with both a 5 second reload the post pen damage on m774 is pitiful also the abrams has better protection on its weakspots by the most minimal ammount but the weakspots are MUCH bigger like the turret ring and turret face for example are wide so is the lower front plate
Nope.
Ariete (P) has a 6.4 second reload on average, not 5.3 sec as that only applies to later variants.
Challenger only has a 5.3 sec reload on the first four rounds, after that it drops to a pretty awful 7.1 sec.
It’s identical to L26, DM23, L23A1, etc. etc.
They all use the longrod penetrator preset.
They’re not.
I’d love to show it, but the game’s apparently drunk again and the Armour Analysis tool is showing 3BM-42 cannot penetrate the LFP of an M1 at any distance.
mb i didnt see the thing with the ariete but i have a personal hatred towards m774 and will take the challenger 1 every single time over the abrams
The Leopard 2A4s have a similar armor profile with the gunner cheek being the weakspot on the Leopard, the Challanger Mk 3 has a superior armor profile and the Ariete (P) is a literal prototype. Want to also note how all off their default/Tier I APFSDS (DM23/L23) literally outperforms the Tier IV Abrams APFSDS (M774) by 20+mm? But at the end of the day, why are ANY of them fighting literal modern day APFSDS in a modern day MBT? The newest one of that set is the Challenger 1 Mk 3 from 1986. It can’t be because of “mobility” when the Challenger 1 Mk 3 has similar mobility stats as the T-90A.
Penetration capability ABSOLUTELY matters when you can’t penetrate the enemy whereas they can point-click you anywhere frontally… That’s like arguing a .22 is better than a 50BMG in combat because you can shooter faster.
compares them to light tanks which have poor armor and poor ammunition capability but make up by being fast Do you read or just want to argue? The Leopard 2A4 has a similar armor profile but has a superior round. Ariate P appears to be a similar playstyle, but I don’t own it and rarely see it so I can’t speak on it. The Challenger 1 Mk 3 has a far superior turret protection against KE so it plays more like a MBT compared to the rest (as it can reliably defeat MANGO).
looks at the average being 0.9 Brother, have you played this BR recently? I know the answer is no via statshark, but like seriously, it’s BAD.
Or maybe it’s because it’s first generation ERA designed to counter RPG-7s and provides 0 upgrade to the protection capability as HEATFS at that BR punches through it anyway. Not to mention, I also pointed out how it doesn’t get historical wartime ammunition and you casually ignored that bit of information. Versus Russian MBTs designed up to 2 decades after a tank was retired with ammunition designed 40 years after they were retired while said tanks are limited to non-wartime ammunition.
So why does the T-90A get 3BM60 at 11.0?
Ah yes, the thing NATO tanks get in general and a Gen 1 thermal that’s literally 500x300 resolution… such an advantage in the small maps they put us on and where literally most engagement distances are sub 700 yards so thermals are effectively just an extra modification to drop RP into. Not to mention, Gaijin doesn’t model thermals anywhere near properly and instead makes everything black/white hot with set resolutions for consistency throughout nations. So wanna explain how Russia is steamrolling NATO while they are just so terrible in comparison? But wait… that would require you to play them recently. And literally none of those statistics you stated matter when it literally gets penned through the front at 2000 yards with 0 difficulty…
Tbf, the Ariate (P) is the prototype vehicle. Why Gaijin added it to the TT and not a premium is beyond me. Then again, Gaijin’s use of TT v premium makes no sense as you end up with better/same tanks in the premium as the TT and not the other way around to incentivize playing the TT (we all know why).
Fun fact, I have no idea what you’re going on about “3BM42 cannot penetrate the LFP of an M1 at any distance”. Also, if you punch through the fuel tank, it spalls on the backside because the internal wall that’s modeled but, “coincidentally”, isn’t the case for T-series tanks and instead creates 0 spall.
1 Like
I came to the conclusion this game gives the absolute bias to Russia and eastern vehicles in general on purpose, for whatever reason.
That’s why I’m laughing about how every other NATO MBT is getting full detail DMs in the dev server atm but the Russian ones aren’t. I mean hell, even the BMPT has it modeled currently in game so why not the T-series?