Maybe T80BVM need to have 3BM46

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
102

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

103

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.

104

‘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?

105

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
106

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
107

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.

108

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
109

Are they somehow not at 10.7, or lower?

110

They aren’t MBTs, I thought that was obvious.

1 Like
111

And that makes a difference how? They still turn up in numbers in the same lineup.

112

It’s relatively similar in performance but with a far superior round. Turns out, it doesn’t matter if you’re the fastest tank if you have ammo that performs poorly. But let me guess “jUsT fLaNk ThEm” right?

Does any of that matter if the armor profile leaves you getting one tapped frontally by just about point-clicking anywhere whereas the M1 has to snipe very specific spots to KO them? Is the M5 Stuart a better tank than the Tiger just because it’s more mobile?

Ah yes, as if “Driver, Engine” isn’t a thing in the WT community. Why is it balanced the T-90A can one tap the M1 up to 2000 yards frontally no matter what while the M1 has to hit the LFP?

Ironic as Russia is the only nation dominating it’s peers at that BR. But sorry, forgot you’re a pro-Russian vehicle player seeing how you say the Leopard 2A5 and M1A1 should be 12.7 but say the T-90M should be 12.0.

image
image1065×773 217 KB

It literally isn’t. The IPM1 has the long turret from the M1A1 with the 105mm installed v the M1 that had the short turret. Clearly you don’t know anything about these vehicles. Why would the M1 go up for having a better round when it would literally put it on par with the other tanks there and while the T-90A gets a top tier round at 11.0?

You’re the one that brought up two tanks that literally fought each other IRL. Then if it “matches those vehicles introduced after it”, why not give it a similar round? Outside the Challanger, the Abrams performance is similar to other NATO MBTs at the at BR. Why can’t it have a good round too while Russia gets literal modern APFSDS?

113

Because you can’t compare MBTs to light tanks ?

1 Like
114

What, Why? It’s not the like the Booker is armed with an autocannon, or has that much worse armor than the M1. it’s better when resisting Autocannons too due to lacking composite armor entirely.

115

So you don’t have an argument, aye. I’m just gonna put a pen in that discussion seeing how you can’t actually create a counter for turret rotation and instead started talking about armor (which the Abrams lacks). Just like Necron, your comment history shows how pro-Russian vehicle you are and any time someone mentions nerfing Russia/buffing NATO, you jump on it with the same line of thought. What’s your opinion of Russian MBTs still lacking full fidelity damage models while NATO gets turret traverse mechanics added? Even the BMPT has it modeled.

When it has a poor armor profile, similar to how the M1128 is which at least has the advantage of having an autoloader and an unmanned turret, the only advantage it would get is being able to hit back. Or do you think all 120mm at 10.7 should be limited to DM13 seeing how that’s the round those tanks came out with in 1980? Or is this suddenly a different case because “ThE rEloAd Is OnE sEcOnD fAsTeR wHeN aCeD”?

I mean, I take the T-80B/T-72B into 11.0+ matches and they only get 3BM42. Sounds like Russia just needs to be handheld to be “competitive”.

It’s called 3BM22, which does better than 105mm DM33 and is only 32mm less pen than 3BM42 at flat armor (the Mango round improved sloped armor penetration as it’s a long dart penetrator). Do you know what these tanks run or just trying to argue because you saw something that would benefit NATO like you always do?

Ironic seeing how the chat usually includes 1/2 pro-Russian players crying about how it’s not balanced if NATO gets the same treatment that Russia does. Then again, it would drag that 50+% WR down.

image
image1065×773 217 KB

116

Just check their comment history on their account. It’s a pair of pro-Russian vehicle players that go around to every chat that has anything to do with buffing NATO while ignoring the overpowered stuff Russia gets while having not played this BR in over a year. I just grinded through the US tech tree past the Abrams (up to the M1A2 SEP now) and working on acing the T-90A atm. The Russian grind is miles easier but they don’t want to admit that. They’ll cry about statistics but then ignore Russia slamming the rest of the nations at that BR.

117

If you’ve deluded yourself into thinking the Ariete (p) and M1 Abrams have ‘‘relatively similar performance’’ in all categories except for penetration, then I’ll just claim the penetration between M774 and DM33 is ‘‘relatively similar’’ as well.

The M1 Abrams being so incredibly mobile is exactly why it’s penetration values don’t play a large role. It allows it to comfortably go for side armour whereas other vehicles would have much greater difficulties achieving similar positioning as quickly as the M1 does.

Besides, once again that’s just a Skill Issue™ on your end. Being unable to use M774 is quite telling, but also being unable to utilize the mobility makes it even worse.

Shocker! A tank that offers absolutely incredible mobility, reload rate, gun handling characteristics and versatility should be used in a way that makes use of these strengths!

What do you mean the tank doesn’t perform as well when I purposely play it terribly, and as poorly suited to it’s strengths as I possibly can? /s

I’ve answered this three separate times now:

Talk To Wall GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

That would be equally true as me claiming you’ve said that the T-72A should be 12.7.

You can’t read, can you?

‘‘on-par’’

Also answered this three times now.

Anyways, I’m out.

You’re not reading my replies anyways, and you’re just repeating the same arguments over and over and over again without even addressing any of the counterarguments.

You’ve not answered the two challenges I asked you to address on two separate occasions now. It’s just pointless having any discussion with a brick wall.

1 Like
118

M833 would be closer

Ok so real example, how does the M1’s advantages contribute positively to letting it flank on a map like Advance to the Rhine and do the classic “South” (Blue) team tactic of B > C “Flank” down the “10-I” N-S road, though to the “10-E” corner each Grid square represents 150 meters and is 600 meters which can be expected to take a minimum of ~ 20 seconds, and the only way to bail out is into the courtyard ~200-250 meters at about 10-12 seconds. You are still committing a lot if anyone is watching from any of the relevant features from"10-D / -C" or “9-D”

"Advance to the Rhine"

MapLayout_Domination_AdvancetotheRhine_ABRBSB

Is there even an worse cannon caliber AP shell available at 10.7?

119

?
M10 Booker has much worse armor than M1.

1 Like
120

Not against autocannons due to the lack of having the the turret ring being made of paper, and it legitimately doesn’t make a difference against ammo like 3BM42 or 3OF26.

121

3BM42 is far from being the only round at 10.7.

1 Like