Quickest reload timer than the rest…
then it stays below the USSR version in BR, simple really.
It’s not ‘‘everything’’ and nobody has claimed it’s ‘‘everything’’.
But the simple fact remains that the Object 292 has only 16% more penetration for a 88% slower reload compared to the M60 120S.
Then there’s the problem of 152mm APFSDS not having any noticable damage increase over 120mm APFSDS.
Reload rate is a massively important characteristic for countless reasons, it might not be THE most important, but it’s at the very least as important as raw penetration values.
Dumbing things down to a simplistic answer, the M1 Thumper is a M1A2 on steroids.
If you believe a 12.0+ tank is equivalent to a 10.7 Object 292, I don’t know what else to say.
This is why people make fun of US players.
Leopard 2A7V is 2020, Challenger 3TD is even newer, T-80U is 1986/1991.
They’re only 0.3 BR apart, the CR3 TD is at the same BR.
I look forwards to you explaining how that’s actually not a problem because of surrounding context (context that was previously irrelevant when it suited you).
5 Likes
Both DOI wrong, initial date of introduction/adoption is 27th november 1984, serial production in 1985, order signed 25.01.1985, with production on Kharkiv plant being signed 02.09.85.
However back in 1984 the 1984 batch of T-80U prototype tanks was already in service.
T-80UM both got adopted and put into production in 1992.
T-80B against M1 Abrams
M1 Abrams against T-80B
M1 Abrams against T-80B (if it had M833)
Why are you guys so so mad about the Abrams getting a round that’s just barely better than what it already has?
The round the Abrams has now is just terrible why would anyone not want it to get one that’s better even if it’s only by about 23mm?
At the very worst the extra pen changes nothing and didn’t help at all.
3 Likes
Y’know what, nahhh, I don’t want the Abrams to get a better round!
Not because I’ll be feasting on them when I get the T-72B and T-80B
1 Like
Because they suck at the game and need handicaps to win. They simply want a point and click adventure game and be able to hold W directly to the enemy spawn to spawn camp.
This isn’t even about M1, because already awesome vehicle getting buffed isn’t something I would like to see happening, regardless of the vehicle in question.
You get more spalling.
Good old “if my toy is broken yours should be too!”
The spalling is has now is utter garbage when compared to nearly anything at it’s BR, it really needs it.
Vehicles have their pros and cons, is that an issue ?
Yes it is an issue when it’s not being balanced, the rounds everything else has are monumentally better while the advantages the M1 has over other thanks aren’t really there and tangible.
It’s pretty much just 5% to 10% increases here and there.
Not much faster per se but it’s the most agile
The things the Abrams has going for it are:
1: The LFP has the same armor as the turret face
2: A minor increase in top speed when compared to the Leo 2A4
3: A better reverse speed than the 2A4
4: Slightly better agility when compared to other tanks
4: Thicker than average side armor
But it’s problems are:
1: Hull armor is mostly negated by the turret ring which is the easiest weak spot to hit out of all major nations MBTs
2: Turret/Hull armor is quite thick but not thick enough and can be penetrated by most things at it’s BR and even some at lower BRs
3: The round when compared to even one from the 2A4 is a joke mean while the round of the 2A4 isn’t even that good in the first place
4: The tanks largest weak spot almost always either kills the tank or kills the horizontal drive and engine giving no room to fight back
5: The side armor while being thicker than average isn’t that great when compared to Russian stuff and is mostly negated by the turret ring which is penetrable from almost all angles
If there’s reasons to remove some please tell me, and if there’s more to add to either side tell me that as well.
2 Likes
yes this whole thread is about the m1 lol
5 Likes
But it is balanced, thus making it a non-issue.
It has better armor profile than 2A4. Also, you forgot about it’s reload speed.
When compared to most other tanks it has better mobility, gun handling and gun depression as well. It also has the best ammo compartmentalization.
@Columbia6448
I was just stating that my stance on this wouldn’t change regardless of what vehicle we’re talking about, M1 or not. Buffing already strong vehicles doesn’t feel good, regardless of BR and nation.
The
And yet despite those two things, the Leopard 2A4 is still better due it it’s better round.
But worse armor when compared to other nations.
It’s mostly average when compared to other nations and only better by a very small amount. (once again 5% to 10% increases)
It’s only good because it let’s you carry a lot of ammo safely when compared to other tanks, problem with that is you can lots of ammo and you need too while the 2A4 can cruse around with only 15 rounds and be fine because it’s ammo actually just works.
Personally I’d say it really isn’t even that powerful, I’d take the challenger 1 or Leopard 2A4 over them any day because those vehicles actually are powerful, why? because their ammo and armor actually just work.
The Challenger 1’s armor is thinner on the hull but very thick on the turret, the Leopard is mostly the same but a bit thinner and covering a larger area, leopards are easier to kill than the M1 but it can just as easily nuke everything else.
it had a sub 50 percent win rate BEFORE the CB and KVT according to some people
Another thing on this, the only tank I’d say is worse than the M1 at 10.7 is the Italian Ariete P, poor lil guy always getting bullied by Gaijin.
1 Like
M1 has better reload to compensate so their firepower is pretty equal.
-10 degrees of gun depression surely isn’t average. There are tanks out there with like half of that available.
M1 has horizontal targeting speed of 40 degrees per second, T-80B has 24 and Challengers have 31. I think that’s more than just 5-10% increase.
15 rounds isn’t always enough, especially in longer games. M774 works as well for your information.
2A4 is pretty good but Challys are lacking.
Also, if you think 2A4’s armor works then same should apply to M1 because it has better armor profile.
If you like high powered shells so much to think that, you should try out 120S or Object 292.
5 seconds is now the standard reload for most tanks that aren’t Leopards or Soviet.
And honestly I’d take 1.5 more seconds on a reload for a gun that does more damage and pens more any day.
It is quite literally the average and standard for most MBTs, the only ones that don’t follow this rule are soviet tanks(which don’t follow the NATO standard for obvious reasons) and leopards which only have 1 less gun depression
Which is the NATO standard, even the Ariete P has this.
The challenger and soviets are the exception.
15 rounds is always enough for me as I’m not stupid and refill my ammo on cap points as most people do, 15 rounds of M774 would never be enough and that’s what I’m saying here.
The challengers aren’t lacking anything but top speed, they’re very good people just tend to not take advantage of just how thick the turret face is.
The M1 and Leopard 2A4 have about equal armor and mobility, the M1 is generally more evenly protected while the Leopard has more thick parts and more thin parts. they mostly have equivalent survivability.
I am, I’m getting the Object 292 as soon as I can get my hands on one.
In general the less powerful your shell is the worse the tank is, a great example are most of Britain’s tanks they would be some of the best in the game if their rounds didn’t do so little damage when compared to others.
Generally nothing effects how fun a tank is as much as the round does, a tank can have horrid mobility and no armor, but people will still like it because it’s gun is strong.
1 Like