Now With the M1 being Brought to 10.7, Can We Finally Receive M833?

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

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 guess.
Still helps quite a bit against laser-guided helicopters, like the Kamov’s.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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).

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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:

@MotorolaCRO

Even with that, your turret cheek can get penetrated and spall can damage your ammo.

Sure, though that’s a problem every tank has, other than maybe the Leopards:

@MotorolaCRO

Your front-mounted engine is also a flaw in some cases which can’t be ignored.

In some cases, sure. Though spalling through is quite unreliable, at least with what I’ve seen.

@MotorolaCRO

Yes it can when it starts spamming through your turret ring.

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?

@MotorolaCRO

Merkavas also have paper hulls to anything that has the same or better performance than DM23.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

I’m not keen to count pixels.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Shooting at the driver’s port while tank is angled like that is skill issue.

I mean, it’s still true though, regardless on how you want to put it.

@MotorolaCRO

Turret ring would be always exposed if gun was sitting there, which isn’t the case.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

2A4 isn’t more survivable than M1 nor does it have better armor

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:

@rainy2000

Armour:

@rainy2000

Survivability:

@MotorolaCRO

especially when you compare both if the former only had DM13.

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:

I’d say this is fair for what the Leopard compensates for.

@MotorolaCRO

Left cheek can be penned on both tanks, I already said that.

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:

@MotorolaCRO

And UFP/LFP combo is a much larger area to aim at.

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.

WIDE Swinging Correctly! #cs2 #csgo #tutorial #proplayer #counterstrike #gaming

@MotorolaCRO

2A4s die just fine from UFP shots, I think you might be slightly exaggerating this.

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).

@Dinfire

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.

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.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

I guess.
Still helps quite a bit against laser-guided helicopters, like the Kamov’s.

What’s the FOV of the LWS ?

@rainy2000

At close-quarters though, reverse speed is much nicer, and you can retreat / get into another position more easily if your breech is out.

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.

@rainy2000

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.

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.

@rainy2000

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:

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.

@rainy2000

Sure, though that’s a problem every tank has, other than maybe the Leopards:

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.

@rainy2000

In some cases, sure. Though spalling through is quite unreliable, at least with what I’ve seen.

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.

@rainy2000

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?

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.

@rainy2000

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.

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.

@rainy2000

I mean, it’s still true though, regardless on how you want to put it.

It is true, but shooting at an angled UFP instead of the side is a peculiar choice to say the least.

@rainy2000

What do you mean by this?

Gun is above the turret ring, so you can shoot without exposing it.

@rainy2000

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 mean it’s visible from the pictures you’ve posted.

@rainy2000

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.

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.

@rainy2000

Less so with the 2A4 than the M1 Abrams, if the Abrams used M774, and the 2A4 was using DM23.

Gunner optics on the 2A4 are fairly big and easily identifiable as a weakspot.

@rainy2000

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:

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.

@rainy2000

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.

Good thing M1 has 3x zoom as a base which is pretty good.

@rainy2000

I’d say it’s easier to hit a small rectangle that’s moving 5 pixels than a larger rectangle moving much faster

This all depends on how did you setup your mouse sensitivity and stuff like that.

@rainy2000

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

I can’t speak for OFLs as I never used them, but I had no problems with M774 or UK rounds.

@rainy2000

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.

105mm French rounds at 9.3 are actually worse than M774, so going from great damage to absolutely nothing is impossible.

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

What’s the FOV of the LWS ?

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Navigating those mazes require constant change of direction and acceleration should be helpful.

Yup.

@MotorolaCRO

On plenty of maps/modes caps aren’t that accessible so you’ll be left in a predicament.

HSTV-L moment, lol.

@MotorolaCRO

Both Arietes and Merkavas are classified as MBTs but their in-game armor is closer to a light tank, which is sad.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Not anymore:

@MotorolaCRO

Merkava’s area is much bigger though and include both the breech area and literal turret cheeks.

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).

@MotorolaCRO

Merkava is good if you want to side-scrape every corner you come across, otherwise it’s inferior to other designs.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Great designers made sure to put those two rounds right behind the engine to make enemies’ lives easier lol.

Thankfully the Snail no longer puts those two rounds first.

@MotorolaCRO

2S38 goes bam-bam (lol) and your barrel is gone. Every tank can get fully disabled by it in a second or two,

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).

@MotorolaCRO

Merk’s only worthwhile pros in my opinion when compared to 11.7 M1s are gen2 thermals and better side-scraping ability.

And I’d say versatility and survivability too.

@MotorolaCRO

I seriously don’t think M1s need M829A2 to compete with Merkavas as the difference between M829A1 and M338 is slim at best.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

but shooting at an angled UFP instead of the side is a peculiar choice to say the least.

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:

@MotorolaCRO

Gun is above the turret ring, so you can shoot without exposing it.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

I mean it’s visible from the pictures you’ve posted.

Not really?
Where you can pen with M774 and 120mm DM23 respectively.

Mostly one-shot areas:

@MotorolaCRO

Entire turret ring is freebie if you only want to penetrate something, sure.

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!

@MotorolaCRO

Gunner optics on the 2A4 are fairly big and easily identifiable as a weakspot.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Good thing M1 has 3x zoom as a base which is pretty good.

Can’t say that’s a thing for everything.

@MotorolaCRO

This all depends on how did you setup your mouse sensitivity and stuff like that.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

I can’t speak for OFLs as I never used them, but I had no problems with M774 or UK rounds.

I guess this is just anecdote vs anecdote at this point.

@MotorolaCRO

105mm French rounds at 9.3 are actually worse than M774, so going from great damage to absolutely nothing is impossible.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Where did I state 2A4 should be buffed or nerfed ?

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.

[Dinfire]

@MotorolaCRO

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 ?

If you think you can fight as well with a RISE as you can a T55AMD1, you’re brain damaged.

[Dinfire]

@MotorolaCRO

Yeah, it must be a conspiracy aimed to harm only the US, where only their rounds won’t spall. Looks believable to me.

Dinfire:

And no, this is simply the fact that Gaijin baked it in to make it tougher on USA at the beginning because they wanted to make it a ‘unique playstyle’ of USA. Which was f***ing unnecessary. I’m not here to mince words about how “Everything is so grand” with you again.

The fact is the USA line, as a major nation, is intentionally tougher at skill floor.

And you have the absolute dunderheaded idea that the skill floor for Russia is higher throughout?

Better armor, better layouts, less visibility thanks to the spotting mechanic that is almost the exact same as World of Tanks… slightly longer reload, but EXTREMELY punchy guns, albeit with less accuracy (which at top tier is neglible), and oh yeah, always a little lower BR in many areas of the game, and you’re saying they’re not worth it?

F***ing GET, no one wants your brain-damage around here with that mess.

[Wang_Yi_Tang]

So true
The entire arguement is
Why not give m833 to m1?
-Because its doesnt need it
Why doesnt it?
-Because its good enough
It currently have a round that is not good enough for its respective BR and there are othet mbts at the same BR that is better than it(with pros and cons of course)
-No it does not need it
Why not?
Goes back to square one*

[Wang_Yi_Tang]

@MotorolaCRO

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.

rainy2000:

Since when
Since when theres that small of a difference between m774 and dm23
Better velocity, better projectile mass(affect spall) but 1 sec slower but also better armor, same gun handling and only ever so gingerly slower mobility
but worse armor as u can pen lfp of abrams with dm23 but not the fp of the leo(with m774)

[MotorolaCRO]

@Wang_Yi_Tang

Since when
Since when theres that small of a difference between m774 and dm23

Since when we were talking about DM13 ?
I suggest you reading the discussions before commenting.

[Dinfire]

@Wang_Yi_Tang

So true
The entire arguement is
Why not give m833 to m1?
-Because its doesnt need it
Why doesnt it?
-Because its good enough
It currently have a round that is not good enough for its respective BR and there are othet mbts at the same BR that is better than it(with pros and cons of course)
-No it does not need it
Why not?
Goes back to square one*

This is why I lost my mind on them earlier. I’m not asking for M900 at 10.7, and some argue that it must be left up to Gaijin, and yet, they also deem that it is player skill issue. Considering player skill issue is a problem across every single BR, adding a historical round to M1 which actually carried it isn’t game-breaking.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Dinfire

If you think you can fight as well with a RISE as you can a T55AMD1, you’re brain damaged.

Yes you can as RISE has similar mobility, better reload, gun handling, gun depression, reload speed.

@Dinfire

And no, this is simply the fact that Gaijin baked it in to make it tougher on USA at the beginning because they wanted to make it a ‘unique playstyle’ of USA.

Yeah Gaijin baked in anti-US bias, tell me more please.

@Dinfire

And you have the absolute dunderheaded idea that the skill floor for Russia is higher throughout?

I already said to you why USSR is without a doubt the hardest major TT to play with as a beginner. Your guns might be punchy, but total lack of gun handling and other things make up for that and even some.

@Dinfire

F***ing GET, no one wants your brain-damage around here with that mess.

Ease up with insults, you sound genuinely disturbed.

[Wang_Yi_Tang]

The Leos have both round and even then dm13 is still better than m774 with trade of being reload rate
and guess what leo is slightly better armored than it being turret ring is one pixel instead of 10
Tell me why m833 is not needed for abrams ?
Because its good enough is not a valid arguement
Just because it have ~3 more hp/t doesnt mean its better in everything else

[MotorolaCRO]

@Wang_Yi_Tang

The Leos have both round and even then dm13 is still better than m774 with trade of being reload rate

Yeah buddy I’m not trading 1s of reload for 12mm of added pen.

@Wang_Yi_Tang

Tell me why m833 is not needed for abrams ?

Because the reload makes up for your lower pen ?

[Wang_Yi_Tang]

the leo HAS DM23
THE LEO HAS BOTH

[Dinfire]

@MotorolaCRO

Ease up with insults, you sound genuinely disturbed.

Ease up with yours, you are genuinely disturbed when you continually insult people via gaslighting. If you can’t handle the reality that the trade-off of a better round versus slightly longer reload is worth it, hey, you are legitimately seeking to insult others who play the game.

[Dinfire]

@MotorolaCRO

Yeah Gaijin baked in anti-US bias, tell me more please.

Yes, they did. Or do you forget that over half the modern tanks don’t have the same stats that they actually run with and Gaijin’s own owner admitted they did so to ‘balance’ the nations according to different playstyles?

[T3ddy4]

@rainy2000

This is just goes round and round and I can’t be bothered to continue.

Friend, you are 1900 posts late in realising this.

[Dinfire]

@T3ddy4

Friend, you are 1900 posts late in realising this.

Exactly, the circular argument of nays vs. ayes.

[rainy2000]

Sometimes you can reach a middle-ground, sometimes you can convince them otherwise, sometimes not.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

They can definitely see lasers from helicopters, that’s for sure.

I mean can you fire a missile away from them and turn it in last few seconds ?

@rainy2000

Green = Better to be in a Merkava imo.

Highly depends as Merkava has worse gun depression and won’t be able to use some of the same spots.

@rainy2000

HSTV-L moment, lol.

Shame that thing doesn’t get a ammo box, would be a good improvement.

@rainy2000

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.

Good thing you aren’t meeting autocannons that often, whereas you’ll meet DM23 and better rounds basically in 99% of your engagements.
I’d say your vulnerability to 30mm cannons is much less of a problem than having your whole hull cosplaying as a piece of paper to 10.0 shells and above.

@rainy2000

Not anymore:

Great to see that, that thing was ridiculous.

@rainy2000

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:

They are trolly, but they still have huge areas where even stock darts of some top tier tanks can go through. Their turrets are also humongous with barrels sitting pretty low, meaning your commander/gunner can get easily sniped without you even showing your barrel. I noticed this with OTOMATIC as well and it’s aggravating.

@rainy2000

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.

Indeed, but I’d always want to have my front armor facing the enemy, that is if I had any to begin with lol.

@rainy2000

And I’d say versatility and survivability too.

I agree with versatility for the most part but survivability not quite. Shooting inside the red area will seriously cripple the tank, if not outright kill it in one shot. Shots higher on the UFP (as shown) can easily go over it’s engine so most of the spalling will remain. Any survivability advantage lies in it’s ability to better side-scrape.

@rainy2000

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.

Sometimes you can’t even go for the hull and breeching them is the only option.

@rainy2000

In complete hull-down positions, and not accidentally overextending too much (exposing your turret ring), sure.

Top tier Leopards are definitely better in hull down, top tier Merkavas ? Not so much.

@rainy2000

Not really?
Where you can pen with M774 and 120mm DM23 respectively.

Looks quite similar to me.

@rainy2000

Mostly one-shot areas:

Include the driver’s port as well.

@rainy2000

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.

Yeah so hitting them on the sides can lead to unsatisfactory results.

@rainy2000

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!

Wasting ammo on such a “half-shots” might be a viable strat with M1s, but not so much with other vehicles that have 10/15 rounds in the turret stowage.

@rainy2000

Can’t say that’s a thing for everything.

Maybe not for poor Arietes lol.

@rainy2000

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.

Majority of them has 3-4x as a base zoom.

@rainy2000

I don’t think I have ever said that any of them had great spalling?

Well he said that with French rounds everything went boom but with US ones things didn’t spall at all.

@rainy2000

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.

M1 is really good hence doesn’t need buffs.
2A4 is really good hence doesn’t need buffs.
I’m not asking for buffs for neither.

I don’t really agree that 2A4 is overall a better vehicle, so there’s that.

@rainy2000

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?

No I don’t.
I’m not speaking hypotheticals, I actually tried both vehicles and found them quite good.
I can’t say how 2A4 would perform with DM13 only.

@rainy2000

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.

I doubt anything will change regarding M1 anytime soon, I might be wrong though.

[T3ddy4]

Even if you could convince anyone here of anything, Gaijin will not add it until they see statistically that it needs it. Whole discussion is pointless.