Driver ports.
That thing also has worse gun handling and armor.
Don’t see why M1s would need better round than a Merkava.
I was trying to say that both M1 and 2A4 will keep their weakspots for the most part in a full downtier.
You shoot at the driver’s port, end of story.
It just works.
Shooting left or right isn’t even recommended, even against M1.
Let’s give slight buffs to all great tanks, shall we ?
Again, you’re arguing against something that was historical when we’ve long since passed the rubicon of ‘historical’ with multiple examples. A slight buff to a great tank is not an unwinnable situation for the non-US players.
Vehicles get rounds as needed, so when M1 is in a need of a better round it will get it.
We should not buff great tanks.
I don’t care what you say. It’s not an unreasonable buff. Shush and move on if you don’t like to admit that US players get the higher skill floor.
So you want to remove all disagreers from your echo chamber ?
Speaking of skill floor, it’s pretty clear that out of all three major nations, USSR has the highest skill floor due to crippling flaws that simply never go away.
Italy too-
Lmao!!
Sht if that the case
Italy France Britain might only reserve for skill level of gods only to able to play.
Those aren’t major nations.
I can fight with an 8.7 T55AMD1 at 12.0 top tier and expect to get kills.
A T72B carries the 3BM42 round that can knock out M1A2 SEPSv2.
That’s how high the skill ceiling goes for USSR/Russia.
In the realm of firepower, USSR is given slightly lower BRs, with full line-ups, whereas most other nations (including major nations) do not possess said same. Premiums can be bought and fully kit-out a near top tier line-up in one go.
So while you may see some crippling flaws, I’d remind you that for years, autoloaders were nothing but empty space and USSR/China were nigh invincible as a result.
I was playing near that same tier a few days ago with French 9.3. Whenever I side shot a T55/T62/T72, I could expect to pop them off or destroy crew.
I jumped into the US tree, got the same shots, and shot through empty space without spalling.
The US line suffers in that regard through 9.3 to 10.7. It’s only when the M829A2 was introduced that the Clickbait was given some parity with its opps.
So I don’t know what you mean by crippling flaws, unless you mean lack of gun depression, which is simply a design choice and one that frankly doesn’t come up as often thanks to the map designs Gaijin chooses to push.
People act like M833 are something like M900 but damn that round is even worse than DM33 (105) and DM33 exist around 9.0 lmao
Again, not as big of an issue as with the turret ring of the Abrams.
Sorry, but there’s no other way around that.
I’ve played 816 matches in my T-80UM2 and if I’m being honest, majority of my deaths were due to the LFP and sides. As well as the breech then driver port combo, than outright the driver’s port off the bat.
Majority of my deaths in the Abrams is something to do with the turret ring, whether it be 1-shotting me, engining me, breeching me, taking out my commander and gunner… etc.
It works, though its less easy than just shooting the LFP or the breech - especially not as easy as shooting the turret ring on the Abrams.
It’s not about going for the left or right side of the turret ring. It’s about accidentally missing the centre of the turret ring, which can happen. Same with going for any weakspot.
Just look at this comparison with the T-80UD / T-80UD/BE / Bishma TWMP and the Abrams.
Red = Non-pen
Yellow = Severely cripple / <=50% of the time going to 1-shot
Green = 90% of the time is going to 1-shot.
Ok, maybe you are right.
I assume you are fine with the M1 Abrams being the way it is at the moment, and so I would agree with that stance.
However, the 2A4 is slightly overperforming at 10.7, as it too is another great tank, and according to my analysis here: Now With the M1 being Brought to 10.7, Can We Finally Receive M833? - #2038 by rainy2000, the 2A4 should get a slight nerf, as the way it is at the moment is not 11.0 material, but is better than the Abrams, which doesn’t need a buff, since it is already a great vehicle.
The easiest way to nerf the 2A4 is just by only giving it DM13, which is slightly worse than DM23.
(Mind you, it’s still better than M774)
Instead of a 69% efficiency (the M1 Abrams is around 66%), it would become around 67/68%.
The Abrams is better in flanks / against Russian Vehicles, but struggles against NATO vehicles mostly due to the lack of spalling and penetration.
The Leopard is better played aggressively and in defensive positions, due to the surviviability and armour. The gun is good enough to deal with NATO vehicles more easily than the Abrams.
The T-80B has a much better round than either of them, so it has no issues penetrating and 1-shotting the Leopards, and can play the most aggressively out of either of them, as well as smaller weakspots. But the survivability / versatiliy / gun handling / reload makes it significantly worse at CQC and playing passively.
With the DM13 nerf, the Leopard would still be able to screw up the Abrams via turret ring, but its turret cheeks would be a bit more usable:
It would also make it so that they have to be a bit more careful with their shot placement when dealing with other Leopards, as well as T-series MBTs.
You can fight with RISE and expect to get kills at 12.0. Point being ?
RISE carries M774 round that can knock out T-80BVM and T-90M. Point being ?
And people defeated those tanks all the same.
Yeah, it must be a conspiracy aimed to harm only the US, where only their rounds won’t spall. Looks believable to me.
Oh no, US tanks aren’t the best in every single metric, what a tragedy.
Click-Bait/HC with M829A2 at 11.7 are outright better vehicles than some 12.0s, which is probably the “parity” you’re looking for.
Poor gun depression, gun handling, reverse speed and reload speed is basically the norm for the very big sections of the USSR tech tree.
Some of those literally stops you from using certain spots on maps, increasing the skill floor in the process.
Merkava has LWS, great HE (albeit it’s not proxy), tons of smoke grenades, (ATGM) APS, much better reverse speed, more versatility (no NATO hump), better survivability (other than the unsafe ammo stowage - though you can take 11 rounds and not have that problem), and an empty rear so you can side scrape much better. Oh, and it can’t frontally die to the 2S38 (unless it keeps killing your driver), let alone frontally dying to 30mm APFSDS (lol).
I’d say they’re equals, same with the 2A5/2A6.
If you want one shot kills/disablements you’ll basically aim at roughly the same places for both tanks. In the middle, at and below their guns.
Turret ring is pretty big and shooting every part of it won’t lead to OHKs, you’re still aiming for the center in order to make most damage.
Doesn’t look all that different to me.
From the stories I’ve heard about turret ring, I’d guess the tank would implode when literally anything touches even a speck of it.
Sorry but I don’t think DM23 is all that OP when compared to M774 and is perfectly balanced with the slower reload speed.
You get 21mm of flat pen and 12mm of 60 degree pen for 1s longer reload, thanks but I’ll pass.
This is inherently wrong as playing aggressively will lead you to CQCs which is the area the vehicle isn’t great at.
Turret cheeks are already usable against DM23, especially the loader’s side.
Other cheek can be penetrated on both tanks with respective rounds.
At even 100m away, the whole of M1’s LFP would eat DM13, which alongside the improved turret armor would make M1 outright more armored than 2A4 where both would have pretty similar rounds but with former having better reload.
With the Abrams’ being weakspot being larger at all directions - both horizontally and vertically, and doesn’t change.
Well, one of them definitely has more red spots than yellow / green, and the turret ring is always exposed. This isn’t the case for the driver’s port, as it depends on what angle the hull is at.
When you take all other others benefits that the 2A4 has (survivability and slightly better armour), then I don’t see why it should need DM23 - it’s already good enough with DM13.
Like you said, it’s already a great tank. It doesn’t need any buffs. Not even a slight one like DM23.
Just like the M1 Abrams, which is also a great tank, and doesn’t need M833.
I’ve tried playing it quite passively, but you’ll find (more often than not) that the slower you are moving and changing directions, the easier it is to hit those weakspots of yours.
I can’t speak for you, but I have much better outcomes when I rely on my armour and make it hard for them to get a good shot on me.
You cannot hull-down very well with T-series MBTs either because of their gun depression, though I’m sure you know that already.
The only real way to play it is aggressively, or at least not too passively.
Who shoots the loader’s side anyways?
Go for the left cheek. It’s easier to pen, and is more important since you can get their gunner and commander.
Well, in hull-down positions, I could see that. Though, the spalling produced when hitting the UFP of the Leopard 2A4 is much less than the spalling produced when hitting the turret ring (since it’s only ~62mm thick).
This would help the Abrams against the 2A4, but the 2A4 still reigns supreme in terms of survivability and hull-down positions (since its turret ring is not that pronounced, and the upper UFP is automatic ricochet if you do accidentally expose it in that position).
LWS is nice but it’s uses at 12.0 are limited to say the least as it only alerts you against Laser munitions which are largely phased out at that BR.
I agree about smokes and NATO hump.
Only one Merkava has the APS.
I’d much rather take more HP/t and top speed than increase in reverse from 38 to 64km/h. I’m not sure about you though.
Carrying only 11 rounds on a tank with 5s reload just to try and mitigate the issue is a flaw of it’s own, especially if you take some HE. Even with that, your turret cheek can get penetrated and spall can damage your ammo.
Your front-mounted engine is also a flaw in some cases which can’t be ignored.
Yes it can when it starts spamming through your turret ring.
Merkavas also have paper hulls to anything that has the same or better performance than DM23.
I’m not keen to count pixels.
Shooting at the driver’s port while tank is angled like that is skill issue.
Turret ring would be always exposed if gun was sitting there, which isn’t the case.
2A4 isn’t more survivable than M1 nor does it have better armor, especially when you compare both if the former only had DM13.
Where did I state 2A4 should be buffed or nerfed ?
Left cheek can be penned on both tanks, I already said that.
And UFP/LFP combo is a much larger area to aim at.
2A4s die just fine from UFP shots, I think you might be slightly exaggerating this.
I guess.
Still helps quite a bit against laser-guided helicopters, like the Kamov’s.
Well, it depends.
I think HP/TON matters much more when trying to flank / play on large maps.
At close-quarters though, reverse speed is much nicer, and you can retreat / get into another position more easily if your breech is out.
Also helps quite a bit with side-scraping (and the lack of an engine at the back).
Yes, that is a problem that it has.
However, I don’t think it’s serious enough to make it a real problem if you’re close to caps. Remember that this is an MBT and not a light tank that can’t hold its own weight on capture points.
You can also take 3 rounds more if you want, as those three are at the lowest part of hull, at the rear, unlike the god awful ammo stowages on the Challys:
Sure, though that’s a problem every tank has, other than maybe the Leopards:
In some cases, sure. Though spalling through is quite unreliable, at least with what I’ve seen.
I guess so with the 2S38, though which one is much easier to do it on, especially consistently and within a short time frame that you have?
Sure, though that’s just one of the cons of it.
Hence why it’s not just superior to the Abrams - that wouldn’t be fair if it did.
You don’t have to.
I can tell you that there is more red.
Up to you if you want to believe me or not.
I mean, it’s still true though, regardless on how you want to put it.
What do you mean by this?
If you’re trying to say that the gun can block the weakspot, then I can’t really say anything other than what an unfortunate shot.
Plus I’m not too sure if the barrel would completely negate the shell from hitting the turret ring and causing damage there.
Well you can tell me that, but you don’t show me any reasoning.
Should I just accept what you’re saying as fact?
I’ve showed you my reasoning here:
If the 2A4 had DM13, the hull and turret armour would be better against it, I agree.
The breech, though, is still pennable, and the entire turret ring is a freebie.
Not to mention that a slight angle of the left cheek is an instant pen with DM13:
Less so with the 2A4 than the M1 Abrams, if the Abrams used M774, and the 2A4 was using DM23.
I’d say their turrets would be as good as one another if 2A4 had DM13.
Also, I’m glad that there’s no other Abrams in other tech trees, since non-penning the breech at point blank is just stupid:
Not sure what you mean here…
The weakspots definitely be bigger at close range than at far range (which may be a problem if you’re squishy like most NATO MBTs are), but so are the strongspots. y
You also have to move your gun more at close range than at far range, which can throw your aim off if you’re not tracking them and their weakspots perfectly. Limited FOV especially can screw you over.
I’d say it’s easier to hit a small rectangle that’s moving 5 pixels than a larger rectangle moving much faster, somewhat like getting into someone’s face and bunnyhopping around them in Counter Strike.
I’d 100% agree with you if I was using 3BM42. No problem there.
When you’re using much crappier rounds though, like M774, OFL 120 G1, OFL 105 F1, Shot L23, Shot L23A1, this starts to become an issue for those at or slightly below its BR. And becomes really annoying to 1-shot consistently with them, even when shooting around the correct areas. And I’m not just saying the 2A4 is the only issue. 1-shotting is more infrequent with low-penning rounds against other vehicles too (especially in a full uptier to 11.3 / 11.7).
Hence why people, like this OP, mistakingly think that there’s some anti-US bias in the game.
The lack of spalling means those vehicles with such a shell either have to take a gamble and shoot for the UFP, and try kill 3/4 of the crew members of the 2A4, or go for the safer option, which is the breech (which can be wiggled around to get you to miss). If you go for the breech, you’d still have to finish them off, which can cause all sorts of issues, especially since 2A4s still have a pretty decent reverse speed of 31km/h.
Then if you want to kill him in time before he repairs, you’d want to chase him until he’s at a dead end, or runs out of smoke. But if he’s near teammates of his… there’s little to no possibility of reaping your reward since it would just cause more issues to attack him in that position than you’d want.
Like I said previously, less pen also means less spall fragments, less spall penetration (damaging multiple things as it continues moving), and less spall damage.
The 5s reload is nice on the Abrams, but I can’t tell you how many times the lack of pen and spalling let me down, and even got me killed. Probably more than the number of kills I got by using the 5s to its maximum potential.
So this is probably the last thing I’ll say:
Given what I had said previously,
I think it would be best if the Abrams just had a slightly better round, that being M833.
And if that’s too broken (which I don’t think that would be the case), nerf the 2A4’s firepower such that it only gets DM13, which is still better than M774, since it’s the Abrams’ direct competitor, and is better in terms of survivability and protection over the Abrams, and only marginally worse in terms of mobility and versatility.
What’s the FOV of the LWS ?
CQCs are often urban mazes so getting behind multiple pieces of cover isn’t that hard even when you reduce your reverse to “just” 38km/h. Navigating those mazes require constant change of direction and acceleration should be helpful.
I agree about side-scraping.
On plenty of maps/modes caps aren’t that accessible so you’ll be left in a predicament.
Both Arietes and Merkavas are classified as MBTs but their in-game armor is closer to a light tank, which is sad.
You forgot about those two rounds stowed vertically directly behind the engine. Those two spots get filled first and can often catch spalling from the engine or idler-wheel shots.
Merkava’s area is much bigger though and include both the breech area and literal turret cheeks.
It’s turret is laughably bad when compared to M1’s.
Merkava is good if you want to side-scrape every corner you come across, otherwise it’s inferior to other designs.
Great designers made sure to put those two rounds right behind the engine to make enemies’ lives easier lol.
2S38 goes bam-bam (lol) and your barrel is gone. Every tank can get fully disabled by it in a second or two, but killing M1s will generally be more easier.
Merk’s only worthwhile pros in my opinion when compared to 11.7 M1s are gen2 thermals and better side-scraping ability.
I seriously don’t think M1s need M829A2 to compete with Merkavas as the difference between M829A1 and M338 is slim at best.
You get 13mm of flat pen and 7mm of 60 degree pen.
It is true, but shooting at an angled UFP instead of the side is a peculiar choice to say the least.
Gun is above the turret ring, so you can shoot without exposing it.
I mean it’s visible from the pictures you’ve posted.
Entire turret ring is freebie if you only want to penetrate something, sure.
But I doubt anyone wants to shoot at the turret ring, get the loader and get killed in return. I’ve done it more than once to pretentious players that bought into the turret ring fearmongering.
Gunner optics on the 2A4 are fairly big and easily identifiable as a weakspot.
M1’s breech is far from stupid, have you seen KPz-70 ? That thing is the epitome of bullshittery and a literal black hole for most darts around it’s BR.
Good thing M1 has 3x zoom as a base which is pretty good.
This all depends on how did you setup your mouse sensitivity and stuff like that.
I can’t speak for OFLs as I never used them, but I had no problems with M774 or UK rounds.
105mm French rounds at 9.3 are actually worse than M774, so going from great damage to absolutely nothing is impossible.
Do you mean APS?
FOV of the LWS is everywhere from I can tell, or at least the same with all other LWS systems.
They can definitely see lasers from helicopters, that’s for sure.
It depends.
I agree with if its a complete maze, where there’s twists and turns every 20m or so.
Especially the case in maginot line, at A point, but Merkava is better in open spaces, where there is not much cover:
Red = Better to be in an Abrams imo.
Green = Better to be in a Merkava imo.
Lines inside the circles represent escape routes they may take.
If it’s a long road, then the 64km/h in reverse is quite helpful.
Yup.
HSTV-L moment, lol.
Yeah, just like the Abrams feel like armoured light tanks, where they can be easily frontally penned by 30mm APFSDS.
I definitely find these types of MBTs sad.
Not anymore:
Well, I’d say the Merkava’s turret cheeks are quite trolly.
Some places M829A1 can easily pen it, but then other places even long-barrel DM53 can’t pen it:
Shooting at the armour of the Abrams is much more consistent, and you’ll know if something was going to pen or non pen.
This is why I hate dealing with Merkavas and Type 10s (especially them) since I rarely for sure if my round is going pen, let alone do any damage.
But I 100% agree that its armour is to be relied upon, but that’s to be expected with most tanks other than hull down 2A5/2A6s, and T-series tanks (to a certain degree).
That’s not its only strong point.
The fact that it can go full speed in reverse and look behind it makes it perfect for quickly changing to different conflicts around the map. Whereas nato-hump MBTs and T-Series tanks need to turn around and then press on the gas.
Thankfully the Snail no longer puts those two rounds first.
Agreed, though you cannot kill them during that process, let alone manage to hit them without your 2S38 rounds ricocheting off of them or doing no damage (which is also a possibility).
And I’d say versatility and survivability too.
Well, it’s back to the same questions as before.
“Is the extra pen from the round necessary for it to perform well?”
“No.”
“Is it nice to have?”
“Yes.”
“Does it break any metas?”
“No, not really.”
“Then what’s the problem?”
“Because it’s already good enough.”
“But does the extra pen make that much of a difference?”
If No.
“Then it should have access to it.”
“But it’s already good enough.”
etc.
If Yes.
“Then why does it make a difference?”
“Because it’s already good.”
etc.
Either side can just make the argument that it will make a difference:
For: “So the change is insignificant, it won’t make that much of a difference.”
Against: “So if the change is insignificant, what’s the point?”
OR
Either side can just make the argument that it won’t make much of a difference:
For: “So it would help the vehicle perform a little bit better in some way”.
Against: “So it shouldn’t have it since it would be busted and is fine how it is.”
So is the change too much or does it not matter at all?
This is just goes round and round and I can’t be bothered to continue.
In some cases, that may be the only thing you can see on the hull, like when they’re around a hill and are about to peak you.
For example:
In complete hull-down positions, and not accidentally overextending too much (exposing your turret ring), sure.
But then you realise that most other NATO tanks can do hull-down much more easily because they don’t have to worry too much about their turret ring being exposed, let alone being able to ricochet shells from the now highly-angled upper UFP:
At least LFP / UFP (not upper UFP (though it’s an autoricochet most of the time for the Leo) is hidden for quite a lot more cover and small hills than the turret ring.
Not really?
Where you can pen with M774 and 120mm DM23 respectively.
Mostly one-shot areas:
If you want to kill them, too.
You don’t want to aim for the right turret ring. You’d want to aim centre mass. But if you so happen to hit there by accident, it’s 1000x better than non-penning.
It’s like shooting the corner of the LFP of a T-80B and then being confused as to why they only got the fuel tanks and engine.
Being able to still pen that part of the tank and deal a decent amount of damage (you get the turret ring, vertical drive, and loader) is like a fail-safe mechanism. Not a great one, but better than nothing!
Black line is to represent where shooting past it won’t do anything anyways.
This is just the 2A4’s left cheek:
I’d say that’s about 40% of it. Maybe 45%.
This is just the M1 Abrams’ left cheek:
Not going to lie, I think this looks at least about 55% of it.
But that weakspot moves with the turret as well.
You can wiggle your turret around and make it harder for them to hit it.
You cannot do that for Abrams’ turret ring.
It has open arms, is extremely vulnerable, and is waiting for you to shoot an APFSDS round right through.
100% agree with the KPZ’s. But do I care about that when you can just shoot its cheeks with any round?
Hell, even an 8.0 MBT, like the Vickers Mk.1 can:
Not to mention that issue is only on some parts of it, and not all of the breech.
Can’t say that’s a thing for everything.
Maybe, though I’d think the latter since most tanks at this BR have good zoom, but possibly not good FOV at close range. Such as the Vickers Mk.7 and Type 90.
I guess this is just anecdote vs anecdote at this point.
I don’t think I have ever said that any of them had great spalling?
They are all feel like around Gen 2 MBT rounds, which aren’t great, but get the job done, especially against 8.3-9.3 MBTs, which are all squishy.
And to be fair, most 9.3/9.7 MBTs don’t have to shoot the UFP of 2A4s, which has ~315mm of armour and doesn’t have any components behind them other than crew.
I was making a point.
If the Leo 2A4 is already really good (which I assume you agree), you believe that the M1 Abrams is already good enough and doesn’t need any buffs, and I have shown that the 2A4 may actually be better (in overall characteristics) than the M1 Abrams.
Then the only logical conclusion is to nerf the 2A4 to an acceptable level, which is that of a similar level to the M1 Abrams.
The easiest way to do that is by only giving it access to DM13, which is still better than M774, so it’s not a complete nerf to its firepower.
If the Leopard 2A4 never had DM23, then would you be asking for it to be buffed?
Why would you ask for that when it’s already good enough with DM13.
See my point?
Well, I think I haven’t been able to convince you otherwise, and neither have you.
But this is fine. It’s okay to disagree on certain things.
Even then, the only people who get to decide on balance issues is ultimately Gaijin… and maybe some loud voices from constantly nagging content creators or country mains. AKA Spookston for the HSTV-L and RDF/LT.
