Brother, Chally1 Mk3 looks cool and rad - sound good on papers → hop on 10.7 match → Geez mf Chris, what a fucking dog shit BR.
"some mfs told me that if I cope Russian Bias that hard why wouldn’t you use Indian T90s to press W and win kekw…mfs think one T90s can win the match against it own kind while the whole NATO front lines fall like autumn leaves.
If it’s at 10.7, it’s okay. However, since 10.7 really doesn’t exist it gets sucked up into 11.3+ where there’s top tier ammo running around. Gaijin really needs to start putting hard break into the TT
1 Like
Its 10.7 and i’m OK too. But that BR was broken due to compression.
It can be used both ways.
Thanks for agreeing with me lol.
Why would you push someone ?
Use your amazing game sense and predict everything, otherwise it’s a skill issue.
Once again, just because a vehicle was made in 2000 doesn’t mean it’s any better than one made in 1992 for example.
And AMBT has KE-W at 10.0, so let’s give everyone at 10.0+ KE-W equivalents ?
That logic is really flawed.
2 Likes
What an incredibly contrived reason to dismiss this disadvantage. So the Ariete having poor protection is totally fine because it’s name says it’s a prototype?
So if the M1 were renamed to XM1 (FSED), you’d instantly be fine with it’s current implementation?
Want to also note how the Abrams out-reloads all of them right off the bat?
Because that’s what’s balanced.
- Some tanks have high penetration and good frontal armour but poor mobility, survivability, reload and gun handling.
- Other tanks have excellent mobility, gun handling, reload and survivability but poor penetration.
It’s pros and cons, and this is about the last time I’ll explain this because I’m starting to become a broken record by this point.
If you don’t have the ability to grasp a concept as simple as balance through advantages and disadvantages, you’re never going to get it no matter how many times I explain it.
Your mistake is assuming vehicles in War Thunder must always use wartime ammunition, they do not.
And this isn’t even relevant to the Abrams given that it already uses the correct historical ammunition.
M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, M774 (1979) is the correct ammunition for that date and M833 did not enter service until 3 years after the M1’s introduction.
You’ve also conveniently dodged my point concerning the IPM1 with M900 being available.
‘‘Trust me bro’’
I guess my M1A2 sitting on a 65% winrate from the past 2-3 months of play is just a wild exception and major coincidence.
Which I have.
You just haven’t looked very well.
In fact, the VAST majority of my games have been at 10.0+.
Skill Issue™
I bet that if we were discussing mid-tiers, you’d be the type of player that complains about the M4A3 76 being able to be lolpenned by Panthers.
Please read posts correctly before replying.
I did not state 3BM-42 cannot penetrate the LFP. Read it again.
1 Like
Except it isn’t. One is watching out for someone to peak while the other one is you yourself peaking. One relies on thinking of where the enemy is and hitting them before or as they peak (which is what I’m talking about), the other is reacting fast enough when coming around a corner and if your armor holds up to a hit when you peak (which is what you’re talking about). Again, apples and oranges in situation there bud.
Just because you know where someone is/coming from, doesn’t mean you can’t be aggressive. That’s where armor comes into play (which the M1 lacks in comparison).
It’s two MBTs… this isn’t a comparison of a light tank v heavy tanks scenario. Why is it balanced that the M1 from 1980 is limited to the 1980 round when it had TWO war-time APFSDS that it doesn’t get in game versus the T-90A from 2005 with a 2016 APFSDS designed to counter Abrams variants designed a over a decade after the M1 left active service?
Why not? The T-90A gets 12.7BR ammunition at 11.0 fighting tanks 10.7BR tanks limited to 9.3BR APFSDS.
Nah, if you don’t know where everyone is at all times it’s obviously a skill issue.
You don’t need the increased turret traverse speed to react to unexpected situations as you obviously know everything already, thus you won’t get shot at and armor is meaningless.
Just peek him and shoot at him faster buddy, armor is irrelevant.
You see how it gets messy when everyone starts handwaving things in a discussion ?
Because balancing isn’t being done with just tank/shell introduction dates lol.
Tanks have more things to offer than just their shells and armor. Failing to understand this is really concerning.
So lets give everyone at 9.3 3BM42 equivalents because ZTZ96 has that.
Lets give everyone at 9.0 1200mm pen tandem missiles as AFT09 has that.
List could just goes on and on…
It’s actually really nice that our game isn’t being balanced by some very narrow minded people.
1 Like
I personally don’t understand why Gaijin added it as it’s a pre-production hull to test the vehicle and equipment before final production. Though, apparently they’re getting an overhaul with their DM this update so we’ll see how that changes things. Though I’m curious on what you’re arguing about prototype names and not the discussion at hand. At least it gets 120mm DM33 with 481mm of pen so it can at least hit back. Hell, the Tier I APFSDS 120mm DM23 outperforms the M1’s Tier IV M774.
Cool? Doesn’t really mean anything if your shot fails to pen most MBTs unless you hit specific spots and you’ve got the armor profile of a wet noodle that can be punched through anywhere.
Uh huh… love how any time people want to make the game more balanced for NATO players on specific tanks, it’s “we can’t do that because balance” but then we get things like the BMPT with a chain gun that’s not a continuous belt and how Russia isn’t getting a detailed DM on any of their MBTs next update but EVERY NATO country is.
So why does the T-90A get 3BM60? Limit it to 3BM42 as that’s a good enough round. Also, I just didn’t care as the discussion is about the M1 and not the IPM1. Congrats on knowing another tank in game and that not many people run it (124k games v the 2.3M for the M1A1s). The M1 has a worse armor profile or do you think the Ariete (P) and Ariete should be the same BR seeing how that follows the same logic.
Oh wow, comparing the M1 at 10.7 to the M1A2 at 12.0… totally the same tank and experience…
In the last year and some change, you’ve had 12 matches with the T-90A and 0 with the M1 Abrams. I wouldn’t exactly say that’s “playing them a lot”.
Or maybe the fact the 76mm was designed to counter heavier targets to include the Panzer V? They’re literally direct competitors in WW2. Unlike the T-90A and M1 Abrams… y’all really don’t know how to actually compare situations do you?
We already have that in Bhishma and it’s at 10.7.
2 Likes
And date of introduction should be the balancing factor here?
Just because you know where someone is doesn’t mean they don’t also know where you are… what is even your argument at this point as your discussing when superior armor would be better versus turret speed which is directly in-line with what I was saying.
It genuinely sounds like you don’t actually have an argument and are just upset that people want the M1 to be balanced with its peers in terms of penetration capability. The M1128 gets M900 at 10.3 so why can’t the M1 have it at 10.7?
So why is the T-90A not limited to the round it had when it entered service (3MB42)? It’s more than capable of killing targets at its BR.
Almost like Russia has that at 9.7 and has the 9M117M1 tandem ATGM at 9.3. Funny you bring that up seeing how the TOW-2B is purposely broken by Gaijin for “balancing” reasons and literally putting your barrel toward the missile causes it to detonate before it gets to your tank hull because it’s modeled with a 3 meter proxy circle like an air-to-air missile instead of the 30* downward looking sensor.
He says as if the community hasn’t been in an uproar about this across a multitude of websites to include large content creators xD
More of because the doctrine and technology of the date of introduction. The T-90A was designed to counter the M1A2/Leopard 2A5/2A6 and newer. Why is almost the same BR as the 105mm M1, Leopard 2A4, Challanger 2, etc while getting brand new APFSDS and an upgraded ERA package when fighting tanks retired years before it was even introduced? I’ve been playing this tank and just EATING shots frontally like it’s candy whereas the same can’t be done the other way around. Realistically, it should lose the 3BM60 or go up in BR.
But in regard to the M1 105mm, it should get at least ONE of its war time rounds and not artificially limited to a 9.0BR APFSDS.
‘The T-90A was designed to counter the M1A2/Leopard 2A5/2A6 and newer’
And why does that mattter huh? sidenote chally 2 is 11.7, while t-90 is 11.0
The t-90a is performing average/below average at the br, tanks around it (10.7 and 11.3) are statistically performing better most of the time, even with the BMPT running loose.
Balancing by time is just stupid, IG the M1 Thumper should be 9.7 in your eyes? and most ifv’s should almost all be 12.7?
And you think the Ariete (p) has no downsides relative to the Abrams that off-set it’s advantage in penetration?
‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’ that should be motto for this Forum, because 90% of it’s users seem to suffer from it that particular line of thinking.
You’ve also dodged these points, so I’ll raise them again:
Now actually answer/address these points please.
So then hit specific spots?
Seriously, this really does boil down to you suffering from a pretty significant Skill Issue™ here.
It’s also incredibly naive to imply this is only relevant to the M1 Abrams.
You’re not interested in balance, what you’re interested in is the M1 Abrams dominating it’s peers.
Let’s compare a M1 Abrams with M833/M900 to a Leo 2A4:
- Acceleration? M1 Abrams.
- Top speed? M1 Abrams.
- Reverse speed? M1 Abrams.
- Neutral pivot? M1 Abrams.
- Forwards pivot? M1 Abrams.
- Backwards pivot? Leopard 2A4.
- Penetration?M1 Abrams.
- Reload rate? M1 Abrams.
- Ready rack size? M1 Abrams.
- Secondary armament? M1 Abrams.
- Gun depression? M1 Abrams.
- Turret traverse? Tied
- Vertical gun traverse? Leopard 2A4.
- Thermal sights? Tied
- Lower front plate armor? M1 Abrams.
- Upper front plate armor? M1 Abrams.
- Turret cheek armor? Tied
- Mantlet armor? M1 Abrams.
- Ammunition stowage? M1 Abrams.
- Fuel tank protection? M1 Abrams.
Must be suffering from memory loss there. Seems to be a common occurrence in this community as of late.
Imagine complaining about the T-90A in 2026.
I’m also not going to repeat myself again, just refer back to my previous reply for the explanation.
‘‘M1 Abrams needs better ammo’’
IPM1 is literally an Abrams with better ammo. You’re being incredibly obtuse here.
And no, a marginal improvement in turret cheek armour doesn’t magically transform it into a completely different vehicle.
The Abrams receiving better ammunition would only (and rightfully) result in a BR increase, at which point it becomes redundant because the IPM1 already fills that exact niche.
Historical role and intend is completely irrelevant.
What matters is how the vehicles perform in this video game called ‘War Thunder’.
And in that video game, the M1 Abrams has performance characteristics that are so good, it easily matches those of vehicles introduced after it.
1 Like
So find another route maybe ?
Peeking into an aware opponent will just get you killed, at least I thought you knew that.
Armor is just a passive advantage that often subpar players obsess about because they don’t know better.
This is getting hilarious.
M1 with M900 at 10.7 wouldn’t be balanced with it’s peers in terms of penetration capability, as It’d have by far the best round while also having the best reload speed. Seems like you’re the one that’s upset because people don’t want to unnecessarily buff a fairly good 10.7 MBT so it becomes a menace.
Comments like this tell me you have little knowledge of how things should be balanced in the first place.
T-90A with 3BM42 is a 10.7 material, as showcased by Bhishma.
Where are our 3BM42 equivalents at 9.3 ?
Also, 9.7 isn’t the same as 9.0, so find something else.
I don’t think I’ve seen many “give M900 to M1 and leave it at 10.7” topics on the internet where people asking for that weren’t completely ridiculed and made into a laughing stock. Just like what happened to you in this topic.
1 Like
Peers such as the M10 booker, M1128 & M60-120S? which all have M900 or better rounds available at or below said BR with similar reload rates.
Those first two aren’t peers at all.
120S is a perfect example of how someone that has no idea what he’s doing could give M1 it’s M900 round without moving it up in BR, while using aforementioned tank as an excuse.
1 Like
Are they somehow not at 10.7, or lower?
They aren’t MBTs, I thought that was obvious.
1 Like
And that makes a difference how? They still turn up in numbers in the same lineup.