Huh?
How would BVM be slightly worse, when it has:
-Much faster turret traverse speed (40º/s vs 26º/s).
-Much faster gun elevation speed (40º/s vs 4.4º/s).
-Much better hull front (720 vs 620) and side (troll Relikt) armor.
Switching to 46, BVM would have the same reload and penetration as those, with these three advantages; with 60, it has more pen, but also worse reload.
EDIT: Turns out UE has the same rotation speed as BVM! Not elevation, but still.
T-80UE has the same horizontal traverse speed as BVM though.
locked behind a paywall though
Holy Jesus, true!!
Still pathetic elevation speed, but… I didn’t know about the traverse!
Damn. Shame the T-80UEs are both Premium. They are unironically the best Russian tanks at the moment… and to top it off, they are just 12.0 xD
They are much better 12.7 backups to BVM than T-72B3A or even T-90M for sure.
The 12.0 Abrams gives them a run for their money, probably USA’s most powerful ground line up with unlimited Abrams respawn, with backups you can spawn 10 Abrams that easily delete 12.7s on sight. I hadn’t got 12.0 T-80s but playing 11.7 versions gives me the impression that the 12.0 t-80s might have been #2 best mbts in their respective br, will change my mind after I got the 12.0 Leopards but based on my experience on fighting those things their turret protection are not good enough compare to Abrams and T-80s.
The Abrams are in a funny situation hahah.
As it stands right now, they are all 12.3 material; the 12.0s are undertiered, the 12.7s are overtiered.
Only M1A1 AIM feels like a proper 12.0, and that’s because it’s artificially nerfed with a shell it never used. Instead, I believe it should be 12.3 with its historical shell and along with the other current 12.0s.
This is how I believe they should be:
M1A1 HC: 12.3, M829A2
M1A1 AIM: 12.3, KE-W A2
M1A2: 12.3, M829A2
M1A2 SEP: 12.7, M829A3
M1A2 SEPv2: 12.7, M829A3
Hmm, with that ammo it will be better than SEPs and chinese’s version because of concealment. Driving around with those trashes on top of the turret simply breaks stealth, like those fools who put a dirt bike on the turret to tell everybody they are there lol
The original M1 Abrams could also run M900 after a serial code in the gun production (don’t remember off hand which one it was). I still don’t understand how the M1 (1980) limited to M774 (1980) is only 0.3 BR lower than the T90A (2005, a whole decade AFTER the M1/IMP1 was retired) with 3BM60 (2016). Hell, the IMP1 is HIGHER in BR than the T90A, which I’d argue is a better vehicle outside of reverse speed (I own both all 3 mentioned).
He argued if a round could be used, it should be added… which is why I said what I did. We pushed for M833 and Gaijin shut it down because “it wasn’t that different than M774”, which the M1 used the M774, M833 and M900 rounds.
M833, not M900. M900 would just throw the Abrams to 11.3.
The Abrams lineups used to be better before Gaijin copy pasted M829A2 to literally every single 120m armed Abrams aside from the AIM and M1A1. I get their pov was trying to improve winrates but it made every Abrams play the exact same. They already shot down M829A3 because to them it won’t offer much due to how they made ERA work. It would be the same as giving the base M1 M833 in their eyes, a small increase in penetration (even if A3 pens a ton more then A2 gaijin doesn’t care).
Also M900 was considered standard from about 1989 onwards for 105mm armed Abrams. Most of the M1s had been upgraded to M1 IPs by then. Normal M1s were phased out of service by 1996. M900 also has a higher chamber pressure and I don’t believe the 105 on the standard Abrams could take the pressure difference.
Because date of introduction means nothing ?
But why as the T90A gets 3BM60 at 11.0. The only advantage the 105mm Abrams get is reverse speed as 3BM60 as 3BM42 outperforms M833
But it really does in regard to technology and protection standards. The original M1/IMP1/M1 weren’t designed around countering a literal 2010s round whereas the T90A is designed to hold up against even better ammunition than what those 3 can throw at it. That doesn’t include the fact Gaijin removed APFSDS shatter on angle with the promise to “return it when they fix it”… over 3 years ago.
Because the Abrams get much better mobility, gun handling, and optics. T-90A gets a better round and armor to compensate with a 0.3 BR increase.
However you have to understand the reason why a 70s Abrams is fighting what it does is because Gaijin sees it being on par with newer vehicles. That’s how good they are. I’m not sure what Gaijin is going to do when the SEP v3 and M1A3 are added as according to their logic nothing will compare.
M1’s only advantage over T-90A is reverse speed ?
And ?
If it performs as good as 2010 vehicle in the game they’ll be at the same BR.
M1’s UFP doesn’t shatter but bounces rounds, resulting in non penetrating hits for most of the UFP area.
The T90A is 0.3 BR lower than the IMP1. Seeing how most maps are CQC, optic zoom doesn’t mean anything when what it fights is point-click-kill. The only advantage in mobility is reverse speed, but I’d take armor over reverse speed because the threat is when you move forward around the corner which is also shown in the dominating win rate from RU. Their forward speed and acceleration are similar. Gun handling is debatable seeing how Gaijin just buffed reload speed for RU autoloaders and, unless you GRIND a lot or pay GE, reload is similar if your loader is alive. As soon as they get hit, the autoloader is far faster.
I’ve taken the TURMS into top tier and wrecked house. Russian tanks are far more capable than what Gaijin gives them and we can see that with, again, the domination with RU win rates.
The Abrams has a higher skill ceiling meaning very skilled players will clean house with it. As for gun handling, gun depression, elevation speed, and turret traverse speed can make a difference. The Abrams was built for hull down long range engagements, while the T-90s were built for short-mid range brawling. The Abrams having a relatively low starting zoom and high ending zoom is extremely useful in mid-long range engagements.