Are there any Romanian Vehicles in-game ( other than the premium Duck ) in the italian tech tree?
I think There are some Planes but the only vehicle that come in my mind now Is the OSA-AKM Spaa
Well if there’s already some ground vehicles in Italy from Romania, then I can’t see why not.
Maybe as an event vehicle, though, if they don’t bother or don’t think they need to add another line to the Italian tech tree.
Plus what other unique vehicles could they add for a Romanian tech tree line (though to be fair, stuff like the Finnish line in Sweden was quite copy-paste anyways).
1 Like
Sweden on average has MUCH more competent players than the US does.
I know this comparison is flawed for numerous reasons, but it’s one of the few comparison points we have:
Swedish Sherman (3.7): 63.25% winrate, 5.79 K/D ratio, 4.32 K/D ratio.
American M4 Sherman (3.7): 59.21% winrate, 2.73 K/M ratio, 2.78 K/D ratio.
I agree, but it’s difficult to find an accurate alternative.
The Armour Analysis tool gives good penetration results when comparing a specific shell to a specific portion of armour, but the ‘‘Protection Map’’ feature is very misleading and a bit of a mess:
vs 120mm DM23:
vs 125mm 3BM-42:
Now I know I’m arguing that the M1 has decent protection for it’s BR, but I wouldn’t say it’s as massively superior to it’s rivals as the ‘‘Protection Map’’ claims it is.
Therefore, here’s a better comparison:
The armour of the M1 is equal or superior in virtually every spot.
3 Likes
Romania is receiving the M1A2 SEPSv2. So it’s not the base M1 from 1980.
Yeah flawed because you know the Sherman III/IV is better armored even than the base M4.
But I’m not arguing with you, Neccy boy, because you’re full of it. The M1 is played by a wider margin of players, and it still gets roflstomped by competition that is supposedly woefully “handheld” (not really in my opinion, because I’ve played every damn tech tree, but eh). That’s even with the reload rate.
So the reload rate doesn’t do jacksh*t for any of you unless you’re a wannabe leet and can avoid getting punked on by 16 other enemies while relying on 15 randos to do a good job. (Hint: It never happens.)
So maybe the problem lies in the players and in you.
But it also lies in the technology and the round itself. A historical round of M833 is fine.
1 Like
True ( I thought It was the sept 3 btw) But still Is something that USA too Will inevitably get so you can still compare the stats
Well, I don’t really think that’s the case, at least in low tier.
Though in Top Tier, I could probably agree.
The average 122B player is definitely better than the average clickbait player:
(He died shortly after to the same dude I was shooting MG at)
But at the same time, I can’t really say the Swedish players are that good when the tank itself quite often hand holds them. 122s generally are the most armoured, survivable, and versatile tanks at top tier, so I’d be surprised if anyone does bad in them. I can’t really say the same for the Clickbait, though. Abrams seems to have a higher skill floor than the 122Bs, at least that’s how I see it.
Well for starters, the Swedish Sherman is a premium so it already comes spaded, unlike the M4 Sherman for USA.
The Swedish Sherman also has better hull armour, but slightly worse turret armour and no 50.cal, so I’d say they’re just about even. However, the Swedish Sherman is one of the most well known stat padding tanks out there, which is on the same page as the KV-1E and KV-1B. So no wonder most good players flock to them to artifically inflate their KPS, or their winrate, or to gain a lot of SL (especially since it’s a premium), or to somewhat grind Sweden (if they haven’t done so already).
This isn’t that Swedish players are better, but moreso that the vehicle in particular is used a lot by good players.
Just listing a few:
I’m glad that you can understand.
Well, I’ve tried to highlight their weakspots before:
There may be some stuff that I left out, but generally this is what I believe are the strengths of both of the armours, and their weaknesses (especially for the Abrams).
Agreed. I don’t really rely on it too much either.
That’s better, but again, you didn’t include the turret ring frontally, nor for any other angle for the turret:
I would 100% agree with the fact that the Abrams has better armour if and only if it didn’t have the turret ring weakspot. But it does, and it’s much larger than the 2A4’s, and it’s much much weaker - even being able to be shot through via 30mm APFSDS. And since it’s a turret ring weakspot, you cannot hide it (unless you’re extremely hull down and cautious not to peak any more than you have to and overexpose yourself) or cannot wiggle the weakspot around like you can with turret weakspots. And since it’s a turret ring weakspot, you will do a lot more damage than just shooting the cheeks of either vehicle.
1 Like
The total weakspot area on an M1 is still smaller than that of a Leopard 2A4, and that’s including the turret ring.
3 Likes
Sure, but how much of the total weakspot area is useful?
I would say majority of the turret ring weakspot is quite detrimental to the Abrams, if not a 1-shot.
If you don’t 1-shot the UFP of the 2A4, you are just going to get the engine.
If you don’t 1-shot the turret ring of the Abrams, you will get the turret ring, vertical drive, breech, and sometimes even the engine too.
The less total weakspot areas on the Abrams just doesn’t compensate for such a devastating and easy shot.
And so the armour (that are to prevent 1-shots and 30mms APFSDS) is better on the 2A4 than on the Abrams.
And hence the survivability of the Abrams is actually worse than the 2A4, despite being able to carry all its ammo in the turret bustle.
6 Likes
Well, we know that the the “Cell” armor that the forward fuel tanks should have aren’t thick enough, so it should be increased to ~63mm overall.
So with the current mechanics it’s actually underperforming in terms of “Overmatch” and even then won’t be unless they are modeled with a single variable thickness volumetric plate, due to the way stacking plates currently (doesn’t) properly interact with the overmatch mechanic.
Depends on how exactly things are modeled and how specific tip & impact angle combinations are implemented, and if bending is taken into account (e.g. simplified modeling could be based off Euler's critical load - Wikipedia as a more refined limit impact energy limit).
You say statistics, and the proceed to quote characteristics. Then don’t actually properly compare them either, the colors are also not all too useful, since well it doesn’t put any sort off attention to relative capabilities;
For example;
The combination of the poor turret and KE ammo the M1 provides the worst possible “Effective range delta” for the M1 vs all referenced counterparts (and alternately the potential impact of the addition of M833 or M900(A1) would have on the match ups), which defeats the fact that the UFP causes “Auto-bounce” since you aren’t going to be shooting at it in preference to the LFP / Turret (ring) if you have the choice, most of the time.
As an example.
M1 (M774 / M833 / M900A1) vs T-80B (3BM42), as per your table; N/B - 10% performance reduction to penetration of the shells to account for greatest possible RNG reduction.
(0m / 0m / 2000m++) / 2000m+ ( 800m ( vs right side of turret)) Which is very obviously Negative or, slightly positive w/ M900A1.
So isn’t in the M1’s favor.
Do you have actual Statistical modeling that shows the M1 out performing it’s counterparts, and which dataset is it based off?
It’s more than a feeling at this point.
I’m working on producing a CDF for various tanks to actually pull (understandable, and relatively useful) non heuristic data from samples, that can at least to some degree take a look at actual relative performance (of the surveyed players), I’ll see if I can get it hooked up to Statshark / Thunder skill / WT Dataproject datasets at some point.
5 Likes
Actually neat. How will you control for team skill? American teams are notoriously bad at the game at the M1s tier, leading to more deaths from things like poor callouts, folded flanks, and feeding kills into a CAS player.
2 Likes
That’s what the CFD is for; basically what it will do is effectively place each player in their relative position on the X axis in the series based on K/D, as an example stat (Win rate, battles played, Kills per battle are all some examples of other options).
So with multiple entries the delta(difference) between say the 25 / 50 / 75 / 90th percentile player etc. for each vehicle in question could be compared by running along the relevant value on the Y-axis
As an exemplar the following data shows the performance of tested AGM-65 variants vs slant range;
It should be obvious that the AGM-65B has a much shorter range; and to some degrees is allows for various statistical tests to be applied and other comparative data to be gleaned.
1 Like
We really don’t, that bug report leans heavily in the poster’s interpretation and there is no solid evidence provided that I can see which supports their case.
That’s not to say it can’t be true, just that the evidence presented isn’t conclusive for me.
Regardless, it currently makes absolutely no difference, the UFP ricochets any and all APFSDS whether it’s 38.1mm or 63mm.
The only data sets available to us currently: Thunderskill.
I’ve been tracking the various performances of the countless vehicles for years now, and the M1’s have consistently kept up or exceeded their rival’s performance.
You’re also giving a whole bunch of word salad whilst never having played even a single match in Ground RB with any of the M1’s.
Meanwhile, all of the most skilled players around say the same thing: The M1 Abrams is one of the most effective MBT’s at it’s BR and currently has no need to M833.
Meanwhile, the players that only play USA as well as those who’ve never played the M1’s are those that claim it needs buffs/M833. Coincidence?
2 Likes
You know, This could easily be solved. Just for you if it means you will actually consider what I have to say.
Shame it won’t, isn’t it. Especially considering spading it first and building a proper lineup might help improve the performance of the vehicle.
I’ll even go back to only using M456A2 only, if you want.
We know that Gaijin bases things off the “efficiency” of the average player, and anyway what dictates the most skilled; using K/D or KpB as an indicator as a determining factor is flawed. or are you leaving yourself open to potentially holding hackers and squad stackers in higher regard simply because “number is bigger”?
If you’re trying to make a point, about me. Have you actually looked at my entire stat card; as netiher statement is strictly true? Also way to go addressing anything I’ve actually raised as potential issues considering you don’t understand the “word salad”.
3 Likes
Here’s what I came up with after doing a bunch of testing:
(120mm DM23 @ 500m distance, head-on)
Here’s some of the test results directly:
A middle ground is assumed with the Leo 2’s ammo, plenty of players take more than 15 rounds and some players take less, hence why an average of only the bottom row is taken.
The M1’s right cheek is right on the edge of whether or not DM23 can pen, it’s 397mm effective vs 401mm penetration at that distance, hence the hashed lines.
I personally didn’t know the fuel tanks on the M1 would prove so resistant to DM23, I haven’t gotten a single instance of DM23 penning the left or right sides of the hull.
The driver’s hatch of the M1 gives wildly different results on every attempt, sometimes the round disappears into a black hole, sometimes it wipes the turret entirely, hence a middle ground it chosen.
Surprisingly, whilst the turret ring penetrations deal loads of damage, the mantlet of the M1 is extremely resistant to DM23. Usually only a single crew is killed and the shell deals very little post-pen damage. The right side mantlet of the Leopard 2A4 usually leads to both gunner/commander being killed, as does the cut-out beneath the gunner’s optics.
Lower glacis on the Leopard 2A4’s right side gives inconsistent results, sometimes it’s OHK, sometimes it’s only 1-2 crew.
It should also be noted that a lot of areas on the M1 show a Yellow penetration indicator, the armour values of the M1’s weaker zones are all close to 400mm, so if the distance were 1km or above, the Leopard 2A4 would suddenly have far fewer valid weakspots to aim for.
3 Likes
Comparing minor to major nations is never a good idea, as most players will generally start with one of the big three nations.
It must be noted that going from 49% WR to 65% WR can boost up the stats, because in more occasions your enemies will fold and you’ll end up getting a few free kills while spawn camping.
1 Like
You could consider including damage to the Turret drives, in blue as it precludes the effective use of the gun, and considering the erroneous inclusion of the M1’s Hydraulic reserve tank in the module. Most shots that kill the; Driver, Gunner, Commander or Loader also knock out the gun anyway due to the excessive size of the module.
7 Likes
That’s much better.
Though I have some nitpicks:
How would it look like if the Leo 2A4 gets shot with M774?
Would there be any difference (for example, amount of green area increases?)
If the 2A4 decided they wanted to be more survivable, they could only take bustle ammo.
I know you decided to take a median opproach, but there’s not really any other way to make the Abrams more or less survivable - unlike with the 2A4. To be honest, 16 rounds of APFSDS is not great, but you can work around it.
Interestingly enough, the top portion of the Abrams’ mantlet (effectively the same size as the 2A4’s turret ring / driver port weak spot) is weak enough such that 120mm DM23 can go through and even explode ammo:
Since the first stage ammo of the Abrams is 22 rounds, the left forehead of the breech should all be red, whereas the right forehead of the breech should be how it already is.
I tried the same with the 2A4, and it seems to be the case here:
So what this suggests is that you can take 16 APFSDS rounds - and expect that top right portion of the breech to be a 1-shot kill for the 2A4.
This also suggests that if you take more than 17 rounds of APFSDS for the Abrams, the right portion (albeit smaller) of the breech is a 1-shot kill too (from a small segment of it to the entire right portion depending on how many rounds between 17 to 22).
You included the small portion of the 2A4’s driver’s port where you can 1-shot the 2A4 - which is fine.
I’d also add the small portion of the Abrams’ UFP, which is only 19mm thick, and is the part where the plate meets the 38.1mm plate:
The diagram you presented only shows the breech as a module.
What if you only include things, like the engine, turret ring, and vertical drive… maybe in a different diagram?
(This is generally a more detailed analysis I’ve done around that area of the Abrams).
Red - non-pen
Yellow - module damage / 1/2 crew kills
Green - almost always a 3 crew kills
Also, I think this also applies when talking about weakspots and survivability:
At far ranges, and for flicking shots, it’s easier to shoot centre mass of vehicles than not, which I assume you agree with.
You need greater fidelity / resolution / accuracy (with your eyeballs and cursor) to shoot for the bottom left of a dot than the center of that dot.
For example, if both vehicles were an array of pixels 7x wide, and 7x tall, we may get this:
I can’t speak for you, but I believe it’s easier to hit the one on the right than the one on the left, if you had only a couple seconds to do so.
If you do miss the Abrams’ 1-shot area, you’d either hit the UFP (nothing), or the breech.
If you do miss the Leopard 2A4’s 1-shot area, you’d either hit the upper UFP (ricochet), or the LFP (which you will get the driver, engine and maybe the gunner).
So I believe trying to go for one-shotting the Abrams is easier than trying to go for one-shotting the Leopard.
3 Likes
Sweden is no longer a small nation (as well as France) - at least in top tier:
And I have seen plenty of people who started out playing Sweden - same with people flocking over to USA (after they grinded out another major nation).
Sure, though you could also say that the team with the better vehicles will then have more of a chance to get to spawncamp as well - further increasing the team’s (in this case the vehicles’) KPS.
Enemy teams also folding quickly means less chances or number of kills they can get per match (as opposed to having epic battles where everyone spawned in multiple times) - thus reducing their KPS. So for their KPS to be that high (and with the similar battles played) and have a high win rate somewhat hints towards the 2A4 being slightly better than the M1 Abrams, at least for the average joe.
2 Likes