2A4 has worse armor profile than M1, just for your information. It basically trades reload speed for a better shell.
No it isn’t because their ammo explodes just like western ones do.
Dependent or not, it’s still awfully bad and is getting beaten by literally everything at it’s BR. Also, reload speed takes a hit only if you lose 2 crew members, so can you guess what happens to T-series tanks after they’ve lost 2 crew ? Yeah, their reload speed couldn’t be found, because they’re in the hangar lol.
You not knowing that tanks actually benefit a lot from gun handling in CQC brawls is worrying. Gun depression wise, you still have more than plenty of inclinations which will basically prevent you from using good spots all together.
Maybe in your mind where you think all of M1’s contemporaries flaws are nothing but moot.
Leopard 1s dominate those tiers, but again, that was the transition period for composite armor.
Ironically, almost 20 years before the M1 was fully developed and fielded.
I find it amusing that they consistently say the Abrams is fine by the company’s standards because they expect that they would lower its BR if it was doing worse than expected.
That may hold true for the USSR tanks, but in my experience, China, USSR, and only a few outliers have ever been moved quite nearly as much, and most often only a few BRs up, like the PT-76-57.
I can’t remember the last shift of a top tier M1 or other in lowering their Rating.
I’d honestly say AMX-32s, CM11s, and Olifant Mk.2 dominate it more, as all three share significant characteristics over the Leopard 1A5s, which make them much better.
Worse armor profile? Objectively incorrect. Show me on the Leo where it’s incorrectly modeled and easily abusable turret ring is. I’ll wait.
A slightly slower reload for an undeniably better shell.that struggles much less against contemporary armor that is still competitive even at the current BR range compared to the Abrams.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the TURMs I literally shot up yesterday on a full-side shot where the autoloader system ate the HEATFS I lobbed directly at it. 2 straight hits to the carousal and no ammo explosion. Miss me with that utter nonsense.
Lmfao what? The reload takes a hit as soon as you lose your LOADER. What a brainless statement to make.
Gun handling in CQC is wholly irrelevant when only one side gets to point and click whilst the other has to pixel hunt, and Incase you need a hint it’s not NATO that gets to point and click.
Maybe in your mind where you think the M1 is perfectly fine as it is, which it isn’t. Not by a long shot.
And again, I can quote there are at least 60 players in USSR lines in those tiers waiting for a match every time I queue up. USSR win rates ain’t gonna show you a thing in comparison when they’re versing each other regularly.
Let’s call it how it is, I don’t ever see a US vs US match in top tier, ever. But Russia will be fighting itself regularly. Seems they like to keep parity by the USSR standard of 50 percent, then flex from there. Everyone else seemingly has to follow and be spread out from there.
Well, last time something got moved down was probably in the BR changes of April 2024.
The ZSU-37 went from 3.7 to 3.3. Anything else, it would have to be from an earlier date.
Nothing here has anything to do with the data posted.
Even if you exclude win rate from your entirely anecdotal and unverified claim that USSR is on both sides of GRB constantly at that BR (which I never seen once whilst playing 10.3 US for a good part of last week, must just be your special matchmaking again wherein you apparently get red desert / pradesh all the time despite being statistically highly unlikely).
The M1s retain better performance in the other metrics, well above average.
And again, one slightly better performing tank versus 3 or 4 average tanks, the better performing tank is outmatched. But since we’re also including uptiers against T90As, Type 90s, and whatnot, how about we see those stats?
