An excellent analysis, Raven.
Dude one of your fellow naysayers made a couple accounts and I’ve been roasting them the past few days while you all got me banned.
Not any of any interest to me what others decide to do. What do you mean by “you all got me banned”? I’m not going to get into discussions on bans either given it’s against the rules and off-topic.
You’re a dishonest, argumentative stonewaller who moves goal posts purely to be ‘right’.
I’ve not moved any goalposts, my arguments are essentially the exact same as they were about 500+ posts ago. I and others have addressed and pointed out the flaw in the points you have raised, you are the one who intentionally refused to acknowledge or respond to any argument that is made which you don’t have an answer for or is contrary to your narrative. Few examples mentioned in the last posts for example that you still are continuing to not respond to.
I’ve brought up a massive amount of evidence that the M1 is outgunned and that M833 wouldn’t be outside the realm of reason to add for parity.
No you haven’t. You’ve made claims which have been rebuked by others throughout this thread which you have then went onto to ignore. Ignorance is not an argument.
You’ve been the one dogging me and trying to act high-and-mighty when I plainly call you out for being a manipulative person. And most of the public has agreed that yes, given the evidence, your company (i.e. the people you don’t call your ilk) are absolutely manipulative and liars.
There a very deep and rich irony in you trying to call me manipulative when you’re having to intentionally misquote and mischaracterise my arguments to appeal to a different crowd that has not read the actual test, and then to ignore people pointing this out and the other issues. Why did you intentionally misquote and mischaracterise the test? Why did you refuse to answer the multiple people challenging you on the fact that all your shots penetrated that weren’t on auto-ricochet angles?
Now you may not like that, but that’s on your head for not even acknowledging all evidence brought to the contrary of your narrative.
You haven’t brought any evidence that hasn’t already been rebuked because you like to cherrypick individual characteristics and then try to argue based off that. This has been covered more times than I can count at this point and it is abundantly clear you will never accept that vehicles are defined by all aspects that constitute them.
PS: I haven’t made any attempts to get you or the others banned since our little PMs, and your friend Lyn wouldn’t even try and PM. So as often as I’ve tried to level with you, your ‘cry me a river’ line pretty well solidified your take on this.
Off-topic and other peoples choice to respond to you or not is no concern of mine.
PPS: Gaijin balancing individual vehicles based on individual performance acts as part of the problem. But that’s not the topic. You can’t come up with a good reason not to add M833 to M1.
There has been a torrent of reasons given, many times over now but it doesn’t matter because you have entrenched yourself in your belief that it should get it which won’t be changed by any evidence. Even if Anton himself told you it was not receiving it because it is performing fine as is you would still not accept it (which evidently it is performing adequately since gaijin has not given it this shell or moved it in BR despite being highly played).
Spooky chart.
Here’s the same chart but including the lower BR russian vehicles you keep mentioning compared to the M1. Look how much better they are than the M1 because of the better shell.
2 Likes
Arrogance is not an argument either, but you seem pretty well entrenched in it while hiding from private messages.
As if you weren’t cherrypicking data yourself? “Spooky chart”.
LOL
Do explain why the heat maps correlate then?
2 Likes
Arrogance is not an argument either, but you seem pretty well entrenched in it while hiding from private messages.
Again, off-topic. I did “speak” with you in PMs (after you tried threatening me). That conversation ended when you got rebuked. Stop bringing it up it has nothing to do with the thread.
As if you weren’t cherrypicking data yourself? “Spooky chart”.
LOL
Do explain why the heat maps correlate then?
How is it cherrypicking? The data for the vehicles is there (albeit with the limitations mentioned earlier in the thread). There is no cherrypicking, I’m just posting the data.
1 Like
Didn’t get rebuked, just told that I had to deal with you. Which is funny since you argued with a staff member about being able to block and claiming you could, then deleted the message of how to afterwards.
Forgot about this. Will get around to it.
1 Like
Like you forget about many things.
You know what you were told. Leave it.
Which is funny since you argued with a staff member about being able to block and claiming you could, then deleted the message of how to afterwards.
I never deleted any messages in that exchange, this is you lying again. I also proved what I was saying in those messages.
1 Like
Oh so a staff member did, good job. Get wrecked.
The fact is that even if it could be argued that the M1 suffers because of the weak round, and the very good reload doesn’t make up for it, you’d then have to prove that this disparity is enough to warrant M833 being given to the tank.
Vehicles don’t have to be perfectly meta (even though the M1 is arguably more meta than the 2A4) to be balanced and perform well.
In my belief M833 is not necessary, as M774 performs well enough in conjunction with the 5 second reload (sure, it isn’t truly 5 seconds if not aced, but a Leopard 2A4 doesn’t reload in 6 seconds if not aced either so the difference stays the same) to at least equalize the firepower of the two tanks.
3 Likes
No? All the messages made are still there.
Anyway I’m not carrying on with this as it is off-topic and will just devolve the thread further.
1 Like
I would say it was, until it stopped facing squishy 9.3 vehicles with little to no armour.
I agree with you here for the most part. This is why I believe the 2A6 is just as good as the M1A1 HC (at least at the moment. I am not sure why they aren’t the same BR already). Hell, why is the Leopard 2A4M / PL the same BR as the M1A1 HC???
The M1A1 HC has a similar penning round , slightly better mobility, and a 5.0s reload; however, the armour is better for the 2A6, and has a slightly better round to compensate.
But with the M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2A4 -
The M1 Abrams trades the armour (albeit less extreme than the M1A1 HC with the 2A6 example) and round for a slightly better mobility and 5.0s reload. Although the armour difference is not as striking as with that of the HC vs 2A6, it’s still fairly noticeable due to the fact that the turret ring area is a much more debilitating shot than what the 2A4’s 1-shot UFP weakspot ever was.
You must hope that you get all 3 crew members with that shot on the right-hand side of the 2A4’s UFP, whereas you can almost be assured that you’d either get all three crew members in the turret of the abrams’, or the turret ring, breech, and sometimes even the engine.
The M1A1 HC vs 2A6 is at a better spot than the M1 Abrams vs 2A4 because the M1A1 HC doesn’t sacrifice the round for the better reload, despite the armour difference between its counterpart and the M1 Abrams’ being greater (to a reasonable degree).
4 Likes
That’s your opinion, and as I pointed out above, that doesn’t make-up for line-ups that stack against US teams regularly.
Everyone claiming to rebuke my reasons has only ever come up with ‘774 is good enough’, while also steadfastly ignoring that tanks in other tech trees start having modern rounds by the time you hit 9.3, while the M1 is stuck in 1981 with a round that is actually 'over’performing because it’s buffed by the company itself.
Which goes against their lines of ‘historical accuracy’.
Historical accuracy would be to give the 774 its proper penetration, and add M833 for parity. The sum doesn’t change.
1 Like
I have read up and much of it is objectively incorrect.
The 2A4 has a better shell on top of similar mobility and better armor, btw.
Against the 80B the forward mobility is similar - It’s only the reverse that is worse. Mentioning ammo compartmentalization is a moot point because Russian ammo carousels still behave like they don’t know how to detonate after taking a direct hit - At the same time the autoloaders modeling increases the survivability as it basically completely negates any damaging ability HEATFS could do prior to the ammo.
Reload speed isn’t dependent on a crew member and so long as the AL isn’t disabled it can fire back even during fpe activation.
Gun handling and depression are generally moot points as the large majority of maps these days are flat CQC corridors.
The M1 isn’t trading blows with most of its contemporaries - It’s just outright losing.
There is no balance from 10.0 and upwards. Saying there is, is an absolute copout and meritless hill to die on.
1 Like
2A4 does not have better armour than the M1. The only part of the frontal armour in which the 2A4 is superior is with the 2A4 having a smaller turret wing weakspot. The 2A4 frontal hull armour is notably worse and so is the turret armour and mantlet.
Against the 80B the forward mobility is similar - It’s only the reverse that is worse. Mentioning ammo compartmentalization is a moot point because Russian ammo carousels still behave like they don’t know how to detonate after taking a direct hit - At the same time the autoloaders modeling increases the survivability as it basically completely negates any damaging ability HEATFS could do prior to the ammo.
The reverse is significantly worse, lacks neutral steering. Ammo is not a “moot point” because you’re simply wrong about the detonation, if you hit ammo in a russian tank and destroy it will detonate because it does not have blowout panels. If you hit the carousel and do not hit ammo, why should the ammo just magically detonate anyway? You wouldn’t have hit the ammo before the carousel implementation either in this scenario so that is down to poor shot placement.
Reload speed isn’t dependent on a crew member and so long as the AL isn’t disabled it can fire back even during fpe activation.
Reload speeds are longer because they do not depend on a crew member. If an autoloader is damaged the tank can no longer reload and is forced to repair whereas tanks without autoloaders are not subject to this limitation. In the same manner you could argue with crew skill that not having a high repair skill limits russian MBTs more than western since they are subject to the autoloader repair mechanic while non-autoloading vehicles are not.
Gun handling and depression are generally moot points as the large majority of maps these days are flat CQC corridors.
Trying to claim that gun handling is a moot point in the same sentence that you’re saying most maps are CQC is insane, it is an extremely useful metric in CQC. Gun depression is definitely not a moot point either the difference between -5 and -10 degrees of gun depression is huge and is highly limiting on positions you are able to use and how you have to play.
The M1 isn’t trading blows with most of its contemporaries - It’s just outright losing.
No it isn’t. If it was performing so badly it would have been moved down in BR by now. It has not. Also if the data we do have available is to be believed it is one of the better performing vehicles at the BR.
4 Likes
I can’t wholeheartedly say the M1 Abrams has better armour than the 2A4 when it’s an MBT than can reliably die to 30mm APFSDS from the front. What type of MBT is that? Light Tank MBT? 😂
You can pen any MBT from the front with 30mm
And testing did show the 2A4 to have worse armour even when fired at by M774 you can reliably pen the LFP, UFP, mantlet, and just under the gun sight reliably at 1800m
1 Like
You can, doesn’t mean it’s easy. Would you rather fight an M1 Abrams with 30mm APFSDS or a 2A4?
Id rather fight neither headon because im in a vehicle that can be oneshot anywhere while i have to aim at specific areas of those vehicles or are you implying that you’re holding W in a BMP-2M the entire game
1 Like
So you decided to not answer the question.
I’m saying is that you cannot use your armour, as an MBT, against a BMP-2M reliably when pushing it.
You can use your armour, as a 2A4, against a BMP-2M reliably.
This is almost the case for every other vehicle that have darts.
If you think this is wrong, then you’re being disingenious.
3 Likes