The 5 second reload was added like… a week after Air Superiority came out. They also just recently added M829A2 to the HC and Click-Bait without raising their relative BRs even though they don’t need it. Gaijin listened here and that still wasn’t enough to bring the Abrams up to snuff in the eyes of its players.
2 Likes
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile
Yup. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had M900 fail to pen even when it’s a perfect shot at the driver port - Or it pens but only kills the driver.
It’s just tiresome beyond reprieve.
I told you that 2A4 has worse armor profile than M1, and only thing you could come up with is: “b-b-but look at the turret ring”. You’re basically ignoring most parts of the frontal armor and keep laser focused on the turret ring, like it’s the only part of the tank’s armor profile.
Again, this isn’t about turret rings, this is about armor profile as a whole, and so far you contributed nothing to your argument.
M774 being able to penetrate everything from every angle is factually true, you not using it appropriately is totally on you.
In order to drive around a corner your whole tank has to come around it, which means at some point you will be angled.
Showing you USSR vehicles that struggle literally means they don’t get special treatment. Russian bias conspiracy is like a flat-earth club, just in a video game. Honestly it’s sad and funny at the same time.
3 Likes
-
No all you’ve done is you’ve tried to move goalposts to suit your argument. I asked you a question and you still have failed to answer it.
-
No, it just factually isn’t.
-
If you do it properly you will be angled properly to avoid exposing the idling wheel unnecessarily. You not understanding this makes me question if you even have any relevant experiences driving large vehicles IRL, which grants experience and wisdom in the turning angles and requirements.
-
Keep dying slowly and agonizingly on your hill with your meritless arguments. It’s amusing, if nothing else.
I don’t need to answer your question because original argument is that 2A4 has worse armor profile than M1. Then you tried to move goalposts so you started to talk about turret ring, while totally ignoring other armor plates that when combined, form an armor profile of a tank which is the topic of this discussion.
It’s funny how you’re trying to blame me for moving goalposts, but in your opening reply you did just that lol.
Sorry but yes it is, unless you can prove that M774 can’t penetrate a certain tank from a certain angle.
You can’t drive around a corner without angling your vehicle at some point. Literally any angling you do is enough for a dart to pass through your track and enter crew compartment.
2 Likes
-
It’s very much part of the armor profile argument and you keep dodging because you don’t actually have an argument here. My posts haven’t moved. Yours have.
-
Easy.
T-series. Frontally. Will fail to pen or only partial penetration that will not critical the tank. I have experience to back it up too - What about you?
- Only if you do it wrong. The nuance pick to it is if your vehicle lacks the armor to actually tank a shot frontally - Something most other nations lack except for Russia throughout the BR ranges. I’m telling you all of this because it’s something I actually do in matches provided I’m driving a vehicle that can perform the maneuver.
Look at that, I’ve even given you another maneuver trick to your bag, free of charge. You’re welcome.
lmao
We already showed that’s a lie.
1 Like
T-90A v M774 from 500 meters (M1).
T-72B v M774 from 500 meters (M1).
T-80B v M774 from 500 meters (M1).
M1 v 3BM42 from 500 meters (T-80B).
M1 v 3BM60 from 500 meters (T-90A).
Do tell, which one is significantly weaker against its peers from the front…
Ignoring the fact that the T-90A was first built in 2005 more on par to the 120mm M1 Abrams M1A2 SEP from 2001 (and ignoring that the T-90A has a round from 2016 and sits a whole BR lower than the M1A2 SEP and 0.3 above the 105mm M1), why wouldn’t be wrong with giving the 105mm M1 the M833 or even the M900 to counter the actual tanks that’s in game. If your argument is “Oh, but it wouldn’t be fair for the M1 to get a round designed to counter my tank while we have rounds designed to counter the M1”, we should get rid of 3BM42 on the 10.3/10.7 T-Series tanks and downgrade the T-90A to 3MB42. Or is it just a problem because it’s the American tank while other NATO tanks of similar mobility get far superior rounds than the M833.
Also, before you want to argue reload speed, the M1 already fights alongside 120mm tanks with 5-6 second reloads (7.81 in RB if you want to account for a completely unskilled crew but is unrealistic). I’d much rather take a 6 second reload with a round that can ACTUALLY do something v an anemic 105mm with a 5 second reload. That comparison y’all keep giving is like “which one is better, a .22 minigun or a BAR”. I’d take the BAR any day as it may cycle slower but hits harder and will stop a threat immediately.
4 Likes
why wouldn’t be wrong with giving the 105mm M1 the M833 or even the M900 to counter the actual tanks that’s in game.
It would be wrong because shell penetration is only a single aspect of a vehicle and the M1 is currently performing adequately at it’s existing BR without it, and if data we have available is accurate it is performing better than most contemporaries so does not require a buff. Russian tanks on average get better shells and frontal armour because they fall severely short in most other metrics.
3 Likes
The thing the m1 had is its mobility. I’m currently at work on break. But how much more is m833 going to in increase the m1’s performance? If it gives the same pen ability as the 3bm60 on the m1 i would say it is to much.
The reason the WR is better is because they get allied with Japan more often than Russia or Germany and other players match up with them and they eat up some 2S38s.
Try again with your cherrypicking.
So… Japan 10.7 is the reason why the M1 has a good WR now? I’ll be honest, I’d love to hear the reasoning behind that.
4 Likes
The reason the WR is better is because they get allied with Japan more often than Russia or Germany and other players match up with them and they eat up some 2S38s.
Absolutely zero evidence provided to qualify this spurious claim.
Try again with your cherrypicking.
You don’t seem to know what cherrypicking is, I posted all the data for the three nations you have been comparing there. It is openly available to everyone.
You also have not acknowledged that the M1s have higher performance in essentially all metrics in that data, likely because this conflicts with the narrative you are attempting to push and you do not have any substantiated argument to do so.
2 Likes
He is using what looks to be his personal stats. So i would not bother engaging in that decorum.
He is using what looks to be his personal stats. So i would not bother engaging in that decorum.
1 Like
Slight angle performance. It isn’t much but it would be nice to replace the M735 with M774 and the new tier IV modification be M833
1 Like
Show the whole BR range in your cherrypicking. China, Italy, Japan, and the others.
This is the first time in months I can remember USSR falling below a 50 percent win rate. And it’s because it’s played so much by new players and oh yeah, you have to face against each other so often.
I’ll be honest, I’d love to see you go play USSR today and deal with the new players the way US players had to for, oh, 2 years?
1 Like
The link you provided say the USA has the worst WR at that br. And the picture you provided number of battles where to low not to be personal stats.