In regards to mobility, yes. Sure, you could argue turret rotation speed but that’s only important if you position yourself poorly and have the situational awareness of a brick. The T90A gets better zoom and thermals, better armor, better ammunition, ERA, less punishing damage model (because the T-series tanks are missing their accumulators and battery pack for turret control) and maps built around Soviet tank doctrine.
That’s as valid as I have taken the T-72A into top tier and slammed house with it. But seeing how you have played ONE match as Americans (in the M18 GMC) in the past year, I don’t know where your argument is based off of. How’s the French tanks been treating ya btw? I’ve started grinding them out but have only gotten up to about the Char 25t.
That’s my point… it’s designed to shatter APFSDS due to reaching the critical angle, which Gaijin removed that mechanic years ago with the promise to return it and haven’t.
Arguably IF maps weren’t sub 2km and almost iron flat. There are rarely times where I can’t pull off the same hull down with a US MBT that I can’t in a Russian MBT (then there’s also reverse peaking where you use the hill behind it and reverse up where Russian MBTs benefit from the smaller profile and ammo isn’t exposed to one tap because the ammo wall was hit). Outside of a max uptier (cause that’s on the extreme), the Russians trend to outmatch US tanks in regards to optic capability. You could argue first generation thermals but those are almost useless now after they got dropped in resolution or if on lower in graphics.
Well, if I could GET large maps, I’d love to snipe but I’m getting constant maps like “Breslau” or “Advance To the Rhine”. We really need maps that are like 8km x 8km in combat zone (which would also help with how painful the F&F missiles are at top tier). When I get Aral Sea, I tend to snipe where I can and hold down flanking routes.
Also to note (If statshark is correct) you have less then 200 games in every Abrams you have, and only have ~100-250 kills per Abrams, with 50-150 deaths per Abrams.
You actually have no idea what you’re talking about lol.
Gun handling applies to horizontal and vertical traverse, not reload speed.
No it isn’t.
How does that nullify my arguments about cold hard stats vehicles have ?
You handwaving things because they “don’t matter” is pretty much arguing in bad faith.
I think that was meant for me? And that is pretty accurate, I got burnt out getting slammed by LMURs all the time. However, we have both seen the general player population with the Abrams.
It’s a 7mph difference… people literally run faster than that just to pass PFTs. Unless you get the very occasional Red Desert or Fulda Gap, you won’t see much of that benefiting given the close-range engagement distance and poor long distance sight lines that War Thunder has for modern tanks.
And why would reload speed of the main gun not be part of gun handling?
Literally yes. If you want to make that argument, what about the fact the Abrams can’t aim to the rear sector to engage ground targets? Again, if you play smart, turret rotation means little.
Because gameplay changes. Hell, for all we know, you may have played the M1 back before the T90A was added (M1 came in Update 1.77 in MAR2018 v the T90A in Update 2.1 in NOV2020). Then there’s also the massive change in Air to Ground capability, helicopters, armor mechanics, etc. You don’t see me over here talking about top tier Germany when I haven’t played them in about a year.
I think he meant that as the BVM sufferers a reload penalty when using the longer 3BM60 it should get the 3BM46 as an option so the trade off between reload and pen wouldn’t be so severe, currently it’s a choice between 580mm 6.4sec reload or 457mm 6.0 sec reload, the 3BM46 would bring it up to a 532mm round for the 6.0 reload, which would be a more tempting trade off.
They’re actually pretty close considered the map sizes. T-90A v M1 (no mobility upgrades, expert crew with max crew level) left less than 100 yards between the two when traveling 500 yards, and that really happens in the last 200 yards as when the T90A maxes out in speed at 37mph, it’s less than 2 tank lengths apart. The only reason the M1 puts so much distance is the slightly higher top speed but rarely does that get used outside the occasional large map and the start of the match.
I mean… that’s really all the same bracket imo. The only thing I’d put into “firepower” is the ammunition itself. If you want to go off turret traverse, the T-90A does just fine with 24*/s unless you’re trying to play this game like COD with reaction time to win fights while just holding W into the thick of enemy lines. It isn’t like it’s the M10 Jackson at 4.5*/s (fun fact of, if I remember correctly, it is the slowest turret traverse in game). And how is what I said untrue?
M1 definitely does NOT have good armor at 10.7 unless you’re shooting the turret with chemical rounds. I mean hell, Russian tanks at 10.7 get the 3BM42 MANGO, which was SPECIFICALLY designed to counter the NATO NERA and only entered service in 1986 whereas the M1 doesn’t even get M833 from 1983 (the literal wartime service round for the 105mm for both the M60 and the Abrams. The M900 is strictly for the Abrams 105mm M68A1 and serial number less than 4804). I’ll argue the IMP1 has some decent armor cheeks if it’s fighting MANGO rounds, but most rounds can slam through the gunner/commander side at 500 yards frontally and also the same BR as 3BM60 so the armor is negated. Doesn’t help you can overpressure the tank by hitting the1 turret bits and bobs/UFP though (which is even worse on the M1A2 series. Still don’t get why the SEP v2 doesn’t have the low profile commander’s sight but the M1A2T does, which is also weirdly modeled after the M1A2 SEP v3 with the new APU in the back left of the tank but IRL is the M1A2 SEP v2). I’m just glad they don’t add things like 3BM21B otherwise we’d have to look into things like the AMP rounds, which that’s a blackhole of information with how new it is.
I know, I was just pointing out what that would also mean for other nations if we go that route. Though, from what I could find online, the 3BM42 is still the primarily used round as it was produced in mass and is cheaper than the DU 3BM46. That would also crack open a can of worms for the US as they’re limited to M829 for their default round and can only get the M289A2. If you start Russia out with 3BM46, you’ve now given them a round on par to 3BM60 (which is used because it’s on par to 3BM46 but is tungsten v DU, so easier and cheaper to manufacture), which would then required EVERY top tier tank to start out with their better ammunition like M829A3+/DM73 (as DM63 is the same as DM53 but with a more temperature stable propellent, a factor not in WT) which then power creeps with 3BM59 for the T-72B3A/T90M.
EDIT: I just realized Gaijin weirdly has 3BM46 at a lower penetration value than it should be. It should be on par with 3BM60 from what I found online.
I don’t think Gaijin would give 3BM46 as the starter round, but maybe a tier 2 or 3 mod.
I think Gaijin uses a formula to calculate pen that is only accurate with tungsten monoblock penetrators, so DU and composite round values in game are dubious at best.
I was just thinking they would add it as the default round seeing how it’s the top tier round for the T80U. It could work if they combine it with 3BM60 as the unlock (reload speed v penetration power, which is something I’d wish they do with the US M830A1 and M908)
No mobility upgrades ?
It’s pretty clear that IPM1 is dusting T-90A in any mobility related task.
Ammunition and reload speed is what makes firepower.
Firing off a 500mm dart every 5 seconds is clearly different than doing the same thing but once every 15 seconds.
I don’t know how reload speed has any tangent with gun handling.
That turret traverse speed is found commonly at ~9.0 and at 11.0 it’s simply bad, there’s no sugar coating it. You handwaving things by using “not important” or “just fine” isn’t beneficial to the discussion, as anyone else could do the same thing to IPM1’s flaws.
Also, M1 is performing better at 10.7 than 90A at 11.0, so giving it M900 based off of “historical reasons” would just place it at 11.3 as previously suggested by other posters.
It would be more reasonable to look at the 0-30 if you’re talking about gameplay for combat time (which is only 0.24 seconds), especially since most of the map design pushes for closer engagements.
That’s if you grind it out completely/pay money for it. It’s 5.3 seconds w/ max crew skill and expert crew buff, which is until your gunner gets hit then it’s FAR longer than any autoloader (which doesn’t take much with low little effective armor it has). Then there’s also the Abram damage model nerf with the turret basket and hydraulics that kills ALL turret control with a single hit, which Russian MBTs are lacking the hydraulic accumulators and battery system that goes into theirs.
How do you play MBTs, holding W into the middle of the enemy lines trying to roleplay Rambo? At what point is 24*/s not enough to deal with targets?
According to the WT Data Project ( WT Data Project), the T-90A has a higher KD and win rate so… no idea what you’re going on about. So why does the T90A get a literal top tier round at only 0.3BR higher?
You have to reach combat and get out of various different things somehow.
IPM1 will easily be several seconds faster than T-90A to good spots, which can’t be ignored.
You don’t even need Expert crew to have more than a second faster reload than 90A, as you’ll be on 5.7s with full Leadership + Loading skills.
No, you don’t need to play like a Rambo in order to notice a big difference between 24 and 40 degrees/s. If you need to move your turret 45 degrees to any side, IPM1 will do it in a bit more than one second, while 90A will take almost two. This just goes worse and worse for 90A if you start increasing the rotation distance. Not to mention vertical traverse speed in immensely better on IPM1 too.
Your first mistake was using that outdated site.
I don’t see an issue with that ?
Why does Sabra have a round that’s better than 3BM60 at 10.0 ?
Looking at things in a vacuum is never a good idea.
Oh wow, you mean the maps that are less than 1.5km x 1.5km so congrats, they got there… a whole 2 seconds faster? Doesn’t mean much when the MOST tanks literally can point click anywhere frontally on the Abrams.
Are we really pretending this is anywhere near the same gameplay wise because the Abrams is very slightly faster to cross the entire map?
Which is great until you take ANY hit to the loader. Which, given the fact the Abrams has paper armor for what it fights (as shown above), doesn’t take much.
Again, play smart and don’t place yourself where you need to turn the turret far (which goes with any tank)? With that argument, the M10 should go down in BR because it has a sub 1.0 KD and 4.5*/s turret traverse rate.
You used a chart that goes by monthly report v the one I used is updated 3 days so good job comparing apples to oranges in regard to statistics? Arguably, you used the more dated information. Also, the T-90A historically trends better than the M1 when you look at the data plot on statshark.
You mean the M60 upgrade that only has the round going for it? Unless you hit a really gimmicky spot in the cheeks, it doesn’t stop about ANY APFSDS at that BR. Not to mention, the turret ring is the size of Texas so not sure what you’re trying to compare there as it’s even worse than the T-90A.
Play smart and don’t get hit, so your armor deficit isn’t showing.
See how easy it is to handwave all the negatives that don’t suit your narrative.
So you’ll either stop handwaving things as you please for reasons or this discussion is over.
Your site uses Thunderskill to gather data, so it’s really inaccurate and incomplete from the get go.
Oh yeah, we definitely have seen some major game changes in March that renders Statshark’s February stats null and void, right ?
Even trying to argue WTDP is anywhere nearly as accurate as SS is hilarious.
Sabra has other qualities you’re conveniently forgetting about.
I don’t know what’s hard to grasp in the fact that M1 with M900 is a 11.3 material. Maybe it’s your hilarious denial of all the pros of M1s that is clouding your judgement.
It really isn’t unless you’re doing things like YOLOing across an empty field brainlessly. Then again watching people play, that is what most people do no matter what nation they are in.
You never gave any example of when 24*/s isn’t enough other than “it takes longer”. Congrats, literally just think about where an enemy will show up and you won’t have to try to do snap shots like you have to with every other tank in game (again, should the M10 TD be lower seeing how it has a sub 1.0KD and the slowest turret rotation in game?). Then again, you haven’t played either the US in since 2024 and Russia since January of 2025.
Oh please, like what on the Sabra? It’s literally a M60 with composite screens, LWR and aircraft auto tracker. It actually ends up losing the smoke shell as an option and the 12.7mm. And if you want to argue about how the Sabra Mk I has a good round at 10.0, shall I point to the 2S25M that has 3BM60 at 10.0 and the Khrizantema-S that has the 2016 upgraded ATGM and can punch through every NATO top tier tank at 9.7?
Idk, probably because I’ve played both of them within the least year while you haven’t played the US since 2024 and Russia since January of 2025.
