Apparently Swedish / Italian 2A4s are performing better than the German 2A4s - including the Abrams.
Vickers Mk.7 and Ariete (P) surprisingly doing very well.
@Dinfire and @Casino_Knight I’m pretty sure that we already had this convo before… But i ask you two to maintain a certain level of respect both towards each other and towards the topic itself. I do understand that by disagreeing you guys naturally get to this point… but as the guidelines say, please be agreeable to disagree, and don’t critique the person but the idea.
There’s no need to insult each other, your discussion can eventually lead to a middle way and to other users benefitting off of it. Please keep it clean, it isn’t the best solution to hide entire parts of a conversation because of it breaching forum guidelines, a lot of context will simply get nuked because of insults. There’s always the chance of formulating your messages in a “polite” way.
2 Likes
Apparently Swedish / Italian 2A4s are performing better than the German 2A4s - including the Abrams.
Only in winrate for the swedish 2A4 very slightly, kills per death and kills per battle are both notably lower than the abrams for the swedish 2A4.
The italian 2A4 does do notably better, and the arietes in general do well. You can see though that the games played in the vehicle is significantly lower compared to the swedish 2A4, which in itself is significantly lower than the german 2A4 and the M1.
I would imagine this is down to those being minor tech trees that aren’t as popuilar as the main three, which a lot of people tend to believe attract more experienced people compared to newer players which if true could give a reason as to some of those discrepancies.
Vickers Mk.7
This isn’t surprising to me given it’s a very good vehicle. It’s essentially a 2A4 which loses some survivability from blowout panels and slightly weaker turret armour in exchange for an above average shell. The challengers also have decent shells but their mobility hinders them greatly with getting to positions to utilise that firepower effectively, the vickers mk7 doesn’t have this limitation. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mk7 moves up in BR in the near future with how well it performs.
As for the arietes I’m not overly familiar with them aside from the very top tier ones being the common punchline of jokes.
3 Likes
Dying to autocannons isn’t an Abrams specific issues, just any tanks I let them shoot me for .5 seconds then my barrel would usually turn yellow or orange, you know what happens when you insisting to shoot with a coloured barrel, your ammo just disappear and now your barrel is red lol they will get you either way turret ring or not, sometimes just got the breech for god knows how when I was only half a second late. The most annoying ones are those with unmanned turret, there is a high probability of not doing may damage if you shot them in that area and that is the only spot you have access to during that time.
3 Likes
Maybe it’s just the hanger camera throwing me off but the Wolfpack does seem bigger. I’ll have to actually get into a battle and put the two side by side again to check.
Starts with DM13 APFSDS, no HEAT on SWE leo2A4
1 Like
Not really.
As I said, if you want to discuss armor profile then all armor plates should be looked into, not just one. Meanwhile you’re focused on a single part of that armor profile and eagerly avoid looking at other parts that are equally important.
M774 can penetrate multiple points on the T-series tank’s front. Looks like it isn’t that easy.
You can’t do it right. You’ll always have to angle your tank in order to go around a corner.
1 Like
-
Yes, really. No amount of dodging or moving the goalposts will help your argument on this. If you don’t have the courage to answer such a simple bloody question than admit defeat and bow out.
-
9/10 times those " penetrations " are partial and do not critical the T-series to a level where it is unable to return fire. 774 was anemic at 10.3 and it’s worthless at 10.7BR. Simple as.
-
Yes, you can. You’re just obviously inept in this regard and you’re better off accepting that you are and putting in the effort to get better than to try and argue about it.
1 Like
That area becomes much smaller when you realize hitting the UFP produces ricochets.
Vehicles aren’t balanced by their date of introduction, they are balanced by their performance. It’s crazy that you still haven’t caught up to this, it’s been said like 50 times in this thread alone.
Meanwhile T-90A has worse mobility, gun handling, gun depression, reload speed, dart and only has slightly better armor than SEP. It would be pretty weird if they were any closer in BR.
Once again, vehicle’s ammo is only a single variable in like a dozen of other things that determine vehicle’s BR. M60 AMBT has a similar round to 3BM60 and it sits at 10.0, which looks pretty daunting if your logic (that ignores all the caveats behind the reason vehicle has a certain round) is used.
2A4 has worse reload.
Vickers Mk7 has worse reload optics, ammo all around it’s hull, terrible first stage ammo stowage, gun handling.
There’s a good reason why some vehicles have better rounds than contemporaries at the same BR, it’s something Gaijin uses as a balancing measure.
Only tanks that have 5s reload at 10.7 are Challengers, and it’s pretty obvious those have plenty of their own flaws that need to be balanced out. Others are stuck at 6s and that one second is more than you think.
M774 can do more than something to everything it faces.
M774 will stop a thread immediately.
1 Like
You’re the one dodging the discussion about armor profiles by moving the goalpost to the turret ring, which as I said plenty of times already, is just a single part of the profile.
That’s like you try to argue one F1 car will lap around a circuit slower than the other because it has a lower top speed. This is such a ridiculous statement to make while just focusing at a single part that makes vehicle’s performance.
I think you’re just slightly overexaggerating this. I’ve used M1 with M774 as well and it’s more than enough to cripple any tank, T-series included.
I’m sorry but no you can’t, at some point in time you’ll have to angle your tank. You can only refute this by posting a video of a great driver (like yourself) doing it in the game.
You need to realize this was a decompression in which most vehicles above 10.0 moved up by a notch. M1 was moved in line with that, just like more than a dozen of old 10.3 vehicles, so why do you expect any compensation ?
In fact, not a single old 10.3 received any kind of compensation.
3 Likes
Wrong, T-72A doesnt have 3BM42
And ofc soviets have more they made more tnaks of more different varities.
Also 120S has same minuses as russian tanks but the thermals, and guess what, better shell than T-90A or anything top tier Russia gets at 10.0
Now soon enough Israel will have their own version of that.
1 Like
This is a perfect example of how looking at a single metric will cloud your judgement and make you believe some vehicles are OP/bad. M1128 is a pretty sluggish vehicle, meaning it will be easily outpaced by most enemies at it’s BR, which doesn’t look great for a light vehicle. It also has pretty bad reload speed, bad gun depression and is big as a house.
Can’t you see how many cons it has and M900 alongside unmanned turret are the only two selling points of M1128, when compared to other light vehicles at 10.3.
Meanwhile, M1’s cons are basically only armor and shell. By giving it M900 you would eliminate one of it’s cons and turn it into a pretty big positive. But no, M1 with M900 at 10.7 wouldn’t be busted at all lol.
Blatantly insulting people won’t make your points stronger.
3 Likes
Since it got up-tiered to 10.7 giving it m833 wouldn’t be the end of the world when it still is worse then dm33 which is standard for most nations at 9.0. All it would do is make post pen more reliable. That 5 second reload becomes a lot less appealing if you don’t have reliable enough damage to capitalize off it.
2 Likes
Is this thing still 10.0?
-
I’m not dodging the discussion - It simply hasn’t progressed because you refuse to answer my question which is entirely relevant to the armor profile discussion. You and you alone are the one dodging. I’m standing perfectly still.
-
I wish I was exaggerating, but I am not. It is my experience using the round.
-
I’ll take your request into consideration since you seem to need a visual side of how to do it.
-
Because the M1 was uncompetitive at 10.3 and it remains uncompetitive at 10.7 - The armor is wrong. The damage model is wrong and the shell is anemic. It was uptiered without any of its glaring flaws that make it uncompetitive corrected. Such also goes for the Challengers, Arietes, Leclercs and so on. None of their glaring flaws were corrected - Gaijin in all their absolute intellectual degradation just shoved them up the BR bracket and fixed nothing for them.
Rounding back to this since I went to Google to triple-check myself as I’ve been at work and had the opportunity. In-match they are the same size. It’s just Gaijin’s shenanigans in the hanger that makes the Wolfpack look larger by a stupid margin.
1 Like
Yes you are, otherwise you’d be glad to discuss all parts of the armor profile, not just one that conveniently suits your agenda.
Have yet to see a single piece of evidence that goes in favor of this statement. Even when looking at your own stats I don’t see it underperforming when compared to it’s contemporaries.
So you basically want to remove each and every flaw the tank has while leaving it at the same BR, got it. I guess you’re one of those people that want that kind of “balance” for their favorite toys.
1 Like
-
We can move along once you answer the question, which you continue to refuse to do.
-
I don’t even look at my own stats but just because I’m not bottoming out in it doesn’t mean it’s competitive. That’d be the same as me saying the 7.0BR Weasel is competitive just because some dude got a Nuke in it in a max uptier. Other people in this thread already defeated that argument about individual stats - Even if I was going 3-1 ratio for it that doesn’t justify your argument.
-
Yeah. I want the vehicle accurate. Not some gimped piece of absolute garbage that it currently is. Just like I want the Challengers to not be garbage. Just like I want the Arietes to not be garbage. Just like I want the Type 90/10 to not be garbage. Just like I want the Leclercs to not be garbage. Yes, how dare I want vehicles to be accurate and not be absolutely garbage. What a villain I am.
3 Likes
Sure, you can get barrelled, tracked etc… in any vehicle. But actually taking crew damage / dying is a whole different thing, which is surprising considering these vehicles are suppose to be MBTs that should be able to take those types of incoming threats, other than from the most extreme cases.
These are a problem for the Type 90 (Turret ring is quite vulnerable, as well as the LFP), the Ariete (P) (driver / ammo rack! / fuel tank at LFP), Leclerc (driver / ammo rack! / fuel tank at LFP), ZTZ99’s driver’s port (albeit it’s quite small compared to other MBTs’), and Challenger (LFP can get driver - somtimes ammo, driver’s port - may be loader or gunner depending on what angle).
And then you have the Abrams’ turret ring, which is very susceptible to enemy autocannon fire from practically any angle (other than near the rear).
2 Likes