Maybe T80BVM need to have 3BM46

[MotorolaCRO]

@ww2planes

You never gave any example of when 24*/s isn’t enough other than “it takes longer”.

I literally gave you an example of how much better 40deg/s is when compared to 24deg/s.

@ww2planes

Congrats, literally just think about where an enemy will show up

That implies you know where everyone is and who is peeking you next and at what time.
Quite unrealistic scenario if you ask me.

@ww2planes

(again, should the M10 TD be lower seeing how it has a sub 1.0KD and the slowest turret rotation in game?

I don’t know, I’m not the one looking at single metrics in a vacuum and justifying additions that way.

@ww2planes

Then again, you haven’t played either the US in since 2024 and Russia since January of 2025.

T-90A hasn’t changed one bit from the last time I was playing it.
Also, this has nothing to do with us discussing horizontal turret drive speed lol.

@ww2planes

Oh please, like what on the Sabra?

Like good gun handling, gun depression, reload speed, thermals, decent turret armor ?
You’re portraying it as some trash ass vehicle that is subpar in everything.

@ww2planes

shall I point to the 2S25M that has 3BM60 at 10.0

And ?
You’re just dismissing your own logic without even knowing it.

Jokes write themselves.

@ww2planes

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.

Oh yeah, surely much has changed and T-90A went from being super mid to super OP while M1s got even worse ?

You definitely need to find some other angles in order to justify your M1 getting M900 while staying at 10.7.

[ww2planes]

Not really outside of “it turns faster” which obviously but so what? If you’re having to snap to a target that far off center, you’re probably already gonna die if they’re looking at you. Are you really trying to argue that, somehow, that you’re in the top 7.83% of GRB players with 16k+ ground matches with double the average kill per spawn but don’t know common paths/sniper positions, know how to read the map or just recognition of where shots are coming from/going to (which, if anyone is curious, the median Kill/Spawn is 0.611)? Of course you’ll get outplayed at some point, but turret rotation isn’t going to be the make or break on you surviving that. Armor will.

You say as you keep going “but the turret rotation is slower”…

Not as if the Abrams now fights the T-90A, T-72B3, T-80U, BMPT, T-72 Arena, T-80UK, T-80UM2 with Kontact-5 or even RELICT and the ZTZ series with FY-4 (a double layer ERA to counter tandem ATGMs) while being limited to a round it never used as the APFSDS you have to unlock in tier 1 then a round used for 3 years as the tier IV upgrade… oh wait, that’s exactly the situation it is in right now XD

It’s also a paper tank that light tanks can punch through. I was pointing out how you bring up the Sabra Mk I with “it has other capabilities”, which it doesn’t and you didn’t even list a single one, while ignoring the 2S25M with a more capable round. It’s annoying when you get punched through but at least you can hit them back just fine. That isn’t the case with the T-series tanks and it’s artificially nerfed to a round it wouldn’t have used in actual combat after M833 was produced 3 years later.

Dude, I’ve literally been playing these tanks. I get that I’m in the top 3% of players so personally it isn’t much of an issue for me but I’m literally watching team mates getting SLAMMED constantly while in the M1 Abrams. The least it could have is a good round seeing how it has the worst armor against KE, the worst APFSDS and a massive fake weakspot of a turret ring because Gaijin won’t give it volumetric.

EDIT: Also, if you get an uptier of any type and that does happen frequently, you’re quite literally fighting top tier designs with an 8.7/9.0 APFSDS depending on what you have unlocked.

[MotorolaCRO]

@ww2planes

Not really outside of “it turns faster” which obviously but so what? If you’re having to snap to a target that far off center, you’re probably already gonna die if they’re looking at you.

Turning your turret 45 degrees in a certain direction isn’t really “that far off”.
You can know common paths and things like that, but you’ll still end up reacting to things happening around you in that moment in time. I’ve missed so many easy kills (or got killed) just because my turret traverse was lacking.

@ww2planes

Of course you’ll get outplayed at some point, but turret rotation isn’t going to be the make or break on you surviving that. Armor will.

In plenty of cases turret rotation (and reload speed) will be extremely important to your survival, so I can’t really agree with you on th is one.

@ww2planes

Not as if the Abrams now fights the T-90A, T-72B3, T-80U, BMPT, T-72 Arena, T-80UK, T-80UM2 with Kontact-5 or even RELICT and the ZTZ series with FY-4 (a double layer ERA to counter tandem ATGMs) while being limited to a round it never used as the APFSDS you have to unlock in tier 1 then a round used for 3 years as the tier IV upgrade…

Oh no, precious Bebrams is lacking in full uptiers.
Tragedy.

@ww2planes

how you bring up the Sabra Mk I with “it has other capabilities”, which it doesn’t and you didn’t even list a single one

It does and I did, you’re just blind.

@ww2planes

while ignoring the 2S25M with a more capable round.

?
M322 is better than 3BM60.

[ww2planes]

It’s a 16*/s difference. It really is not that much of a difference and can be made up by rotating the tank in that direction. Not to mention, if your loader gets hit with how there’s no effective armor, the expert reload time goes from 5.3 seconds to over 10 seconds on the Abrams, losing ANY advantage you would have in a fight.

It’s almost like there’s no 10.7 lineup for any tech tree so the M1 gets shoved up into higher BR matches all the time. Again, you clearly haven’t played any of these tanks in a LONG time.

The Sabra is literally worse than most NATO tanks across the board and is only sometimes on par to at that BR… so idk where you’re getting the “good gun handling, gun depression, reload speed, thermal and armor”. The horizontal/vertical traverse is 34*/s / 15*/s (worse), vertical guidance is -9/19* (worse), reload is 6 seconds (on par/worse) Gen 1 thermals (on par/worse) and is quite literally an 8.7 tank armor profile (M60A1) with composite plates designed to stop Kornet ATGMs and RPGs (worse) with minimal affect on KE. The ONLY thing it has going for on making it worthwhile is the M322 round.

Aight, fair enough, I did poorly write that. That was in regards to the M1 and not the Sabra

[БЕИ]

@ww2planes

The Sabra is literally worse than most NATO tanks across the board and is only sometimes on par to at that BR… so idk where you’re getting the “good gun handling, gun depression, reload speed, thermal and armor”.

Sabra is dangerous to everything even 12.7s. That thing deletes everything on sight, it was so stupid when it was at 9.7.

[Max_Damage]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

the 12.7s are overtiered.

They are strictly better than 12.7 bvm, t90m

[MotorolaCRO]

@ww2planes

It’s a 16*/s difference. It really is not that much of a difference and can be made up by rotating the tank in that direction.

It is a notable difference as in just two seconds you’re losing 32 degrees of rotation which will easily be a part of your demise in certain scenarios. You can be in a situation where moving is not an option due to several reasons, so having that much better turret traverse is definitely a bonus you’re trying to deny.

@ww2planes

Not to mention, if your loader gets hit

Let me just use your brilliant logic and arguments against you.
Why are you getting hit in the first place, just think about where an enemy will show up.

@ww2planes

It’s almost like there’s no 10.7 lineup for any tech tree so the M1 gets shoved up into higher BR matches all the time.

Several TTs have lineups worthy of 10.7.
US, Germany, USSR, GB, Italy, Sweden and maybe even France.

@ww2planes

The Sabra is literally worse than most NATO tanks across the board and is only sometimes on par to at that BR…

Sabra simply isn’t bad at 10.0 and surely didn’t need M322 so it can be there.

[ww2planes]

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).

[ww2planes]

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?

[Necrons31467]

@ww2planes

Oh wow, you mean the maps that are less than 1.5km x 1.5km

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)

@ww2planes

a whole 2 seconds faster?

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.

@ww2planes

Doesn’t mean much when the MOST tanks literally can point click anywhere frontally on the Abrams.

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.

@ww2planes

Are we really pretending this is anywhere near the same gameplay wise because the Abrams is very slightly faster to cross the entire map?

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.

@ww2planes

Which is great until you take ANY hit to the loader.

I’d rather take a hit to my loader in an IPM1 than to my autoloader in my T-90A.

@ww2planes

Again, play smart and don’t place yourself where you need to turn the turret far

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).

[ww2planes]

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?

[MotorolaCRO]

@ww2planes

If you’re having to turn your turret that far for that to matter to save yourself, you’re already done for.

No you aren’t as not everyone is aware of everyone else’s positioning.

@ww2planes

You’re comparing apples to oranges because you have to show yourself to engage a target.

Predict where it’s coming from and just shoot it before it can react, easy.

@ww2planes

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.

Again, date of introduction doesn’t mean anything in this game.

@ww2planes

that’s not a lineup meaning either you bring in lower BR tanks to fill your roster

Oh no, bringing 10.3 light tanks/AAs to 10.7 is such a tragedy.

@ww2planes

And again, talking about the M1, not the IPM1.

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.

[ww2planes]

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.

[Necrons31467]

@ww2planes

M1128 at 10.3 (which has M900… funny that IT gets M900 but the M1 can’t even get M833).

It’s almost as if the M1 Abrams is a massively superior platform compared to the M1128.

@ww2planes

Whereas Russia gets the T-72B, T-72B (1989), T-64B

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.

@ww2planes

which they also get 3BM42 which didn’t come out till 1986.

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.

[Rzi4628-live]

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

[ww2planes]

1. 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).

2. 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?

3. 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.

[Necrons31467]

@Rzi4628-live

it has terrible armour

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.

@Rzi4628-live

and the worst round at the br

And the fastest (sustained) reload at the BR.
Reload rate is also more important than penetration.

@ww2planes

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.

Name me a 10.7 MBT that has equal mobility to the M1 but has equal/significantly better armour.

@ww2planes

I can literally play them almost mindlessly and end up in the top 3 on my team.

With you sitting on a 1.4 K/M ratio that evidently isn’t true.

@ww2planes

I mean… it’s a 1978 armor design with poor ERA added in 1988

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.

@ww2planes

why does US tanks get artificially limited in the rounds it can use

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.

@ww2planes

3BM42 outperforms M774 by 85mm and 3BM60 outperforms M774 by 208mm

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!

[Rzi4628-live]

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

[Necrons31467]

@Rzi4628-live

the challenger 1

Better turret, worse hull.

It’s situationally better, and also why I said ‘‘Majority’’ and not ‘‘All’’.

@Rzi4628-live

and the armour is WAY worse than the 2a4

Better*

- YouTube

@Rzi4628-live

m774 is a horrible round especially in a full uptier

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.

[Rzi4628-live]

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