M1 v Ariete (aced w/ max crew skill)
Top forward speed: 72 v 65 kph
Top reverse speed: 38 v 46 kph
Reload rate: 5 v 6 seconds
Turret horizontal traverse: same at 40s
Turret vertical traverse: 24/s v 20*/s
Vertical guidance: -10*/20* v -9*/20*
Gunner cheek from the front v KE: ~390mm v ~380mm
Loader cheek from the front v KE: ~420mm v ~380mm
The M1 does have CE protection in the LFP that the Ariete (P) doesn’t get, but it doesn’t do anything against RU APFSDS (only effective at stopping NATO).
APFSDS capability: M774 (372mm at 0*/215mm at 60* at 0m) v DM33 (481mm at 0*/278* at 60* at 0m)
Yeah… that looks pretty similar in performance up till the ammunition. Sorry that some of us can read I guess.
It literally isn’t anything special in mobility and is on par to other NATO tanks due to doctrine at the time. Also, you act like I don’t have a 1.5KD with it when the average is 1.1… I know how to use it, it doesn’t make it any less stupid that it gets a piss poor round while being one of the worse in regards to KD/Kill per spawn versus the rest of the MBTs in its BR according to statshark.
So why can’t the Russians flank? They can move around just fine and I do it all the time with them. So what’s the argument of them having 3BM60 at 11.0 then when 3BM42 is just fine. All you’ve said so far is “but M1 mobile” while so is the M1128 and any other NATO tank.
Again, literally your own words. Don’t be upset just because someone called you out on not knowing the vehicle’s design and history.
You really haven’t done anything except go “BuT aBrAmS is 7 KPH fAsTeR aNd TuRnS fAsTeR sO iT’s SuPeRiOr”. If that’s the case, the BMPs and BMDs can go up in BR to 10.0+ seeing how they can pen MBTs in certain scenarios right? Also, also not as if the Abrams turret ring has been skuffed for years and isn’t volumetric like it should be even though they modeled the depth to it horizontally when you view the armor plate.
Yeah, the M735 that the M1 gets as its first APFSDS (at a whopping 292mm of pen. Idk why it even gets that as it wasn’t a round it used). Everything else outperforms it.
I already told you that T-90A with 3BM42 is a 10.7 material and you’re just ignoring that.
Same thing with M1 with M900 being at least 11.0 material.
You just keep ignoring everything that’s said to you.
Again with his date of introduction yapping.
I said all I have to say regarding that, so next time it’ll be ignored.
Or you have zero idea what you’re talking about.
No, it’s pretty much everyone laughing hard at people that want to put M900 on an M1 while keeping it at the same BR.
Also, lets not pretend that February WR isn’t tied to BMPT influencing those games.
Tanks like T-80UD or 80B don’t really perform better than M1s despite their much better rounds and armor.
You literally didn’t. You defaulted to “but the turret turns slow” as if playing smarter doesn’t counter that. If you get flanked that hard and turret speed is the deciding factor, you’re probably gonna die even if you had a fast turret. Not as if you can’t also rotate the hull toward the threat, decreasing the time to target while also putting your thicker armor toward the threat. Then you attempted to create a false argument about pushing a corner where turret speed then literally means nothing and the armor protection is what you need… which the T-90A has and the M1 doesn’t.
Except it really isn’t. I bring the T-72B into 11.0+ and do just fine with it. And why does it need to be 11.0 when the M10 has 10.7 with M900. Hell, the Object 292 is also at 10.7 and slams that BR in regards to KD and KS while having mobility
You literally haven’t had a counter other than “but Gaijin balance” when the T-90A slaps 10.0 tanks around with 3BM60 with a top tier hull. Do you have any actual evidence the M1 would be overpowered with M900 other than “but it would buff NATO”? Why does the M1 have to unlock M735 with 292mm of pen and not just get M774 as its tier I APFSDS?
I have literally running those tanks to include into top tier with friends. Saying Russia needs to be handheld is an understatement.
I’ve counted TWO people and it’s the same people in this chain crying about how the M1 should have equivalent rounds and checking y’alls comment history is mostly anti-NATO rhetoric does track with that.
Not as if the M1 had the worst KD for all 10.7/11.0 before the BMPT was added or anything… oh wait, it did. Data pulled from statshark. Outside of November, the M1 was literally the worst performing out of the 3 across every game mode in regard to KD for the last 7 months. Also, holy moly is China and Russia dominating Sim Battles across the board once you hit 8.3. That’s the overall history and the month to month recently is far worse of a spread.
I mean, across the nations, the Leopard 2A4 platform seems to be performing well in KD. The only one of those struggling is the German and Finnish 2A4s. As to why that is while the others prosper, I have no idea. As for the T-80B, it also seems to be doing just fine when compared to the M1, especially when looking at SB (that thing is demolishing there for some reason. Idk what lineups they have had recently so that may play into it).
Well here’s the stats on the KD for the past 7 months so…
And yes, I didn’t include premiums because that’s not accurate to the TT player and can be bought by anybody (both the new player or the veteran), which can cause inaccuracies in how it performs.
it literally is the worst performing MBT at that BR with the occasional exception (primarily in SB).
Yeah, by going “but the Abram is more maneuverable” as if all NATO tanks aren’t. Seeing how we’ve already discussed how other NATO tanks are comparable to the M1, why does the M1 get the worst APFSDS and armor profile?
You didn’t include premiums but you included 2A4 stats from minor nations that factually have better players on average, increasing the performance of vehicles.
Using German one should be the norm as Germany is a major nation, just like US is.
Exactly.
Using stats from several 2A4s found in minor nations is comparing apples to oranges due to the fact minor nation players are simply better and shouldn’t be compared to major ones.
Those minor nations play almost as much as the German one (895,680 matches v 924,397 matches). You’re saying to ignore half of the tanks statistics because you don’t like the fact it’s an accurate representation of players in the tank? So would you argue that the German Leopard 2A4 should have a different BR than the minor nation ones because they do better? Cause that’s the balancing logic you’re arguing right now.
