That’s fair on the time part. However, the armor penetration analysis also does ricochet so it’s not needed to do in game and can allow retesting quicker.
That’s cool, I’m talking from personal experience (both in and against the M1) as well as the armor analysis.
Here’s hoping you come out looking like this more often with more wins than not. Watch out for the Type 90s and T90As.
And don’t have your 774 non-pen on a breech of a T80UD
Good night all I hope we all have fun on the game we like to play
Night Columbia.
Don’t know what matches you are all getting where the M1 is “best” 10.7. Nothing but uptiers so its weak round is even more worthless. But maybe I’m just one of the many “stupid” US players this forum loves to dump on.
Couldn’t image US being the winning nation at ground, just feels like punish for Air RB.
As much…? Q~Q
It’s pretty sound. You’ve even got me on the M833 train, and I personally don’t have issues with M774.
The only technicality would be that it’s a cartridge introduced after the M1’s introduction, though the M1 was still in use when it was implemented… And effectively the only variant capable of using it.
M60 120S is a prototype that’s got superior firepower to the Object 292 thanks to it’s M829A1 with a 5s reload rate.
This is also a 2001-2005 vehicle that’s fighting primarily 1980’s Soviet tanks such as the T-80B, T-72B, T-72B '89, T-64B, etc.
Obviously the M60 120S is balanced via it’s poor mobility and lack of hull armour, not by it’s date of production.
If you believe the M1 Thumper and Object 292 are equivalent vehicles, you need to spend more research on both vehicles.
Oh, so now context suddenly matters?
Where was this context when you were complaining about Soviet/Russian vehicles?
Like I said, stop using date of introduction as an argument, it’s irrelevant in War Thunder.
Mediocre mobility, ATGM’s require longer engagements times, abysmal survivability, extremely vulnerable to SPAA and other IFV’s, poor gun handling characteristics.
MBT’s at the same BR are better suited to the War Thunder meta, provide better versatility and are more forgiving.
Because if their armour were reduced, they’d have literally no advantage in any category that’s keep them semi-competitive.
Generally speaking, Russian MBT’s have worse:
Unfortunately, the Strv 122’s and Leopard 2A7’s now also offer equal/superior armour protection, meaning that they are superior to Russian MBT’s (and any other MBT) in all metrics.
Depends on what exactly you mean as per the M1’s history document, there is an argument to be made; as XM833 began development in mid '80, was Type Classified in '82, and subsequently M833 reached IOC in '83.
The Basic M1 was conditionally released to the US army in late '81, Began hurried deployment to Europe in early '82, and had it’s early production issues resolved / rectified by '84. Just in time to be upgraded with more advanced NERA arrays (IPM1) beginning December 31, '84. and not even 11 months later the first 120mm armed M1E1 (M1A1) was delivered. The “Basic” M1’s were retired in '96 and IPM1 in the early 2000’s.
So for the vast majority of its service life it had access to M833 as its go to war ammo, with the last few years of frontline service being supplemented by M900 or -A1.
sure if it also gets 3BM46 instead of 3BM42.
Chinese, Italian, Israeli 9.0s and AMX-32 on 9.3 all have worse rounds than M774.
Again, I don’t think that Gaijin maintains a clear double standard for how it implements ammo. They just want to make vehicles balanced at their BRs.
Never happening as never exported, in fact there’s reasons for me to think T-80 U Sweden got didnt even have engine it has in game but rather had GTD-1000TF.
I always chuckle when I see someone post: “[Insert US/GER/SWE tank here] needs better round to deal with T-series tanks more easily”. It’s like people purposely forget like a dozen of negatives T-series tanks inherently have from like 9.0 onwards.
Who cares if armor is one of their only selling points, let’s neutralize that and bully them for our fun.
They’re already lower in BR as a result until top tier. Bringing up gun handling and mobility, then not acknowledging that they’re given superior firepower to compensate for those in every tier up until top tier.
Also, unfortunately? So the Germans and Swedes making good tanks is unfortunate? For whom?
Here, let me make it more clear to you, Bos. The USSR is given superior armor and superior firepower from 8.3 all the way through to 11.3. They are also .3 or even 1 degree lower in BR than their counterparts.
The M1 THUMPER will never enter War Thunder.
Even if it did enter it, there’s no - NO - way that the company would ever let it even touch 10.7. That thing would be at 12.7 from jump.
140mm main gun with APFSDS.
Autoloader.
SIXTY (that’s 60!) smoke discharge rounds.
Thermal sights.
Stabilization.
Front turret armor array that would literally stop everything to include 3BM60 from direct front.
Lemme look again at the est. bar and est. penetration values…
140mm L47 mL = 15 kg eL = 5000 J/g Pd = 8000 bar Lmax = 950 mm
105mm L60 mL = 6 kg eL = 4300 J/g Pd = 6300 bar Lmax = 750 mm
120mm L55 mL = 7.8 kg eL = 5000 J/g Pd = 7500 bar Lmax = 850 mm
Wait, back that up.
15 KILOGRAMS mass.
Right, so a 21-25 megajoule 140mm three-piece ammunition loaded by an autoloader with 1250mm of RHA equivalent HAP-3 composite on the front is expected to enter at 10.7 alongside Object 292, which was its expected opposition?
The same Object 292 in this game actively, which also just so happens to pack a 152mm APFSDS, only that’s a SEVEN (7) kilogram mass round. Not 15.
But, somehow, I’m ludicrous to the detractors here for wanting the M833 at 10.7 on board the M1 and M1 KVT.
For Russian tanks, isn’t that logical ?
With 122s and 2A7 having same armor efficiency, Russian tanks suddenly lose one of their biggest selling point. If you want good armor just take those two aforementioned tanks while not suffering from several drawbacks that come with Russian tanks.
Which tanks in particular ?
Gaijin is a Russland company, so there is a possibility of bias in terms of balancing.
Why does everybody think reload time is everything? Like seriously? What’s the 2nd shot gonna do if the first one fails to pen and you get one tapped through your thickest armor?
I’m mean, given the fact the numbers for the Thumper aren’t public (or at least easy to find), kinda. They’re both large caliber tank prototypes that were to test the gun and reloading system.
Because you pulled an IFV that only has a 30mm autocannon as somehow comparable between MBTs…
So it’s fine when literally every other nation can deal with T series except the SINGLE tank, the M1 Abrams… Sounds more like you have an issue with the M1 than the survivability of the T series tanks.
Because you can get cannon breached and pushed without even seeing more than a sliver of their turret, you ever been pushed by a type 10? Not like you can retreat when going -4kmh. In that situation even Challenger is better. I own both T-90 and Challenger, they both have strengths and weaknesses, more news at 11.
but it seems to be ok for you to be able to go through the armor of the m1 with impunity .
lol, OP posted a video of himself shooting the track and saying that if he got M833 he would have killed xD
sorry for your lack of skill, even with M900 you will be playing bad
