Low speed acceleration is literally identical.
A 0.02 discrepancy in time is negligible and not relevant due to FPS limitations and editing software limitations.
I can record the exact same procedure 5 times and get varying results with a margin of error of around 0.05s.
Meanwhile, 0.30s faster acceleration at higher speeds is statistically significant.
???
Why are you aiming for the hull roof with the Leopard 2A4? Why are you comparing apples to oranges?
The hull roof of the M1 is also an auto-ricochet zone and in fact, the hull of an M1 as a whole is VASTLY better armoured than that of a 2A4.
Challenger’s have paper turret roof armour that gets penned by 25mm APFSDS, so that’s definitely worse.
Ariete has paper armour all around, so again, definitely worse.
This isn’t an argument, it’s just a personal belief with no supporting evidence.
Just like an M1.
Because the average player isn’t a top 0.1% pro?
Yes, they’re very well suited which is why from my memory, they were also quite popular choices.
Completely ignored the fact that it has better armour in a hull-down position.
Sure, but I am still making a point. There is effectively no chance you don’t hit the turret ring and do absolutely nothing, whereas there are some plausible events where non-penning / ricochet may occur for things like the 2A4 - making those weakspots unreliable.
Yes, but the 2A4 doesn’t have a massive turret ring.
So you’re going to ignore the fact that AVR is using 2A7s and 122s, even against other top squadrons?
Why does it matter whether the area that’s penetrable is slightly above or exactly on centre of mass? Either way, people will adjust their aim to the weakspot accordingly.
Because this:
Is so much better. /s
Around 80% of the turret front (ignoring inert areas) is penetrable on a Leopard 2A4, the mantlet is significantly larger and weaker than that of an M1, the gunner’s optics and the cut-out for the turret drive on it’s right cheek also make for large, extended weakspots.
Both the video earlier and that video is ufp and not the hull roof there’s another plate right behind the driver’s middle periscope that is the roof of the hull
The technical name for the area is ‘‘Top glacis plate’’, I don’t know what plate you’re referring to, so could you send a screenshot of it highlighted in-game?
Takes longer to adjust to a weakspot than aim centre mass, which typically ends up being the turret ring for the Abrams, and breech / lower UFP for the 2A4.
Sure, the weakspots (turret ring aside) on the abrams is slightly smaller than the 2A4, but I can’t say I’d choose the Abrams’ over the 2A4, if I wanted to survive, of course.
I’m honestly surprised by how you’re not penning those, or even doing any damage xD
I usually have little to no issues with them.
What rounds were you using?
Especially the first one seems to be just a gaijin moment more than anything.
Unfortunate that you shot the one place where it ricochet downwards (from the turret lip) and into the turret ring drive, where all the shrapnel got soaked up.
Why are we talking about M1A1s over the BVM now?
We were talking about:
I showed that top performing players from AVR are using 2A7Vs and 122s (despite ‘armour being irrelevant’), while facing other top performing players from other teams.
So doesn’t that point towards armour still mattering over who has the better reload / mobility?
Why aren’t they using Abrams more?
I mean, I 100% agree with you that moblity and reload can (usually) be better over armour. There was a debate in these forms that the Type 90 should be the same BR as the T-90A, in which I wholeheartedly believe the T-90A is inferior to the Type 90, due to the Type 90 having much better mobility and reload despite it having no armour compared to the T-90A.
Something like picking between the T-64B and the Leopard 2K, most competitive players pick the 2K.
But the difference in the Abrams’ mobility / reload and 2A7’s / 122’s is nothing that crazy, so much so as to warrant taking it over the 2A7s / 122s in most cases.
You can hide your turret ring when hull down and having a direct line of fire on the enemy.
You can’t hide that giant 2A4 mantlet when hull down and having a direct line of fire on the enemy.
Also:
If we’re talking total frontal weakspot area and ease of penetrating the vehicle without aiming properly, the 2A4 still loses.
The dude shot at the turret ring with a 3BM60 instead of aiming at the lower front plate or the hull entirely, which is an autokill with a T90A.
Skill issue galore. and frankly for such a skilled player I question why he aimed at those specific spots when he knows where to aim anyway
Hint: Aiming at the turret ring SHOULD cause shell crushing, its intended that way.
And a dozen bad bounces from 2 months ago means squat.
PS: It doesn’t change how anemic the M774 round is, he’s engaging in brawling ranges when I have brought up he doesn’t play and show us his gameplay in long range maps with the M1 and M774. If he can consistently kill T80s and T90s at 1,500 meters in Red Desert or Maginot Line, then I’ll eat crow.
You been having conversations with imaginary figures again? Got no idea what you’re yapping about.
Last I left you I told you I’d check in with you to see if you’re feeling alright after the next balance patch blows by. I couldn’t resist having a chuckle at your above bit though.
