So now all of a sudden stating my experiences and opinions is insulting lol.
DM23 is slightly better than M774.
5s is slightly better than 6s.
Great to agree.
Try removing the tinfoil hat and try again ?
When it’s insulting the intelligence of other players, yes.
More circular arguments. DM23 would still be better than M833. And armor pen and spalling is better than M774 by a wide margin.
Try putting no spaces between your question mark and your words. Like this? Then try removing your own hat of dunce and understand that your argument is fruitless.
2 Likes
Someone is insulting your intelligence by not agreeing with you, got it.
5.5s would still be better than 6s.
Why don’t we do that as well ?
Yeah, DM23 feels like DM53 in comparison to M774. /s (I think you need this)
Nothing wrong in placing spaces after you end writing a word.
You talking about this is pretty weird.
Only thing that’s fruitless here are the cries for M833, as Gaijin haven’t acted on it for literal years.
1 Like
And that’s why I say you’re insulting other players, because you’re literally stonewalling on the company’s behalf and forcing a circular argument that was agreed would be balanced, only for your selfish need to be correct.
3 Likes
You could.
I guess, though in close quarters the ability to side-scrape better is also nice.
True, but 30mm is the least of your worries, but it’s just an example of how its armour doesn’t really matter too much.
Most rounds at top tier just go through it and because it’s only ~62mm thick, all rounds at top tier will have max spalling possible.
Yeah.
Bushes actually kinda help with that, believe it or not.
It helps conceal the exact spots you can shoot the forehead of the Merkava, since some places will just ricochet. Also it’s not always a good shot since it’s largely a gamble and you may just get the commander.
I can see that in some cases.
Yeah.
Only really suitable if you know there’s another fight going on nearby and you want to help your teammate as soon as possible.
Fair point.
That and the fact that it’s huge.
The Class 3 (P) is also huge and just absorbs so many shots, though its lack of armour may be partly to blame.
Sure, in which case do so.
Yes, which is why it’s better suited in close-quarters combat.
I can’t think of anything the Abrams can do particularly well other than maybe flanking, and being the jack of all trades, but master of none.
Why?
A lot more unsatisfactory than missing on the Abrams - that’s for sure.
It’s not wasting ammo. It’s like missing the main weakspot and still getting rewarded for it.
That too.
Well I don’t exactly agree with him on that one lol.
The only thing I agree with that is that at 9.3, most things are squishy and fairly easy 1-shot kill.
Would you say it would perform as good as a 10.7 vehicle, or do you think that change would be enough to have it go down to 10.3?
I can have the similar opinion on the matter as Gaijin, that doesn’t mean anything.
1 Like
So they’d either get the LW at the last moment where it wouldn’t matter, or if their LWS picks up Laser guidance from a wider area they’d be met with many false warnings.
We can agree on the side-scrape part as that’s the thing Merkava can shine at. In other areas vehicle is meh at best.
Shooting at around the center of the turret ring deals a lot of damage, we can both agree on that.
Bushes can at least try to hide some weakspots, especially smaller ones.
Although it doesn’t stop damage and eventually you will get penned, as your turret isn’t really that strong.
Merkava seems to be one of the worst tanks you can hull down with.
Yeah, going for it’s hull on perfect side-shots might not be the best idea haha.
It’s pretty good at flanking and sniping, at least better than the majority of other tanks.
Merkavas are good at side-scraping and shooting over their backs. I’d also say they can get caught more easily in CQC because of it’s front-mounted engine.
Because it’s pennable at various ranges and angles.
That’s the participation reward I guess.
When you’re working with very low ammo count, you need to make it count.
Neither do I, but he thinks that’s a result from anti-US bias.
I can’t tell as I never used it nor I’ve seen anyone using it as a main round to get impressions from.
Fair enough.
Other than the gun and versatility (and a bit of survivability), I can agree.
In some ways sure, but treat it like any other MBT frontally and you won’t have issues of getting perma-engined for hours on end. You don’t want to expose your hull just have your driver killed, and same with the Merk and its engine.
I don’t see that being the case - just look at the screenshots:
Unless you mean this sliver:
which is only around the driver port, and not the driver port itself.
Then I could add it to the Abrams too:
And this too:
Then don’t miss the centre mass weakspot, that doesn’t change in any way.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But you can tell how it would be with M883?
I don’t think you have ever used it before.
And if the 2A4s were to be still fine at 10.7 (which if we’re being honest to ourselves, it probably would be), then why not? It would make 10.7 more balanced, since
Survivability is good when compared to Arietes or CR2s. Anything else ? Not so much.
Other tanks can put their barrel around a corner much quicker and safer than a Merkava. This is a problem I have with front-mounted engine tanks.
I know what I experienced in games, I don’t want to blindly trust that protection analysis, especially after seeing that M1 screenshot where it supposedly pens the UFP instead of bouncing.
I’ve used M774 which is clearly a worse round and it was good with it, so it’s safe to assume with a round that’s objectively better it would get even better.
I’d say it’s better than that of the Leclercs, Type 10 (somewhat) and the Abrams.
The Ariete and CR2s have no safe ammo stowage, while the Leclercs, Type 10, and Abrams all have very squishy hulls / turret ring that cause massive amount of spalling, often one-shotting them.
I can’t say the same with the Merkavas.
This is true, because of how the turret is a bit more behind the centre of the tank than other MBTs.
I think it’s better to peak the other way, since the turret is closer to the rear, and you won’t get any vital things if shot in the hull, other than maybe the low-hanging ammo in the rear.
The only time that you would be able to pen the upper UFP of the 2A4 is if you’re <20m (Like I said previously):
And it is true that I have had main gun rounds pen right through the UFP, although it’s only when they’re much closer (around <10m):
By how much though?
Is it enough to make it 11.0?
I don’t really think so.
As for the 2A4 with only DM13,
is it also enough to make it 10.3?
I don’t think so either.
Sven DM33 (105mm) still better than M833
And DM33 105 exist start at around 9.0
2 Likes
I don’t know about Leclercs, but IIRC Type 10 can eat some rounds to the hull.
M1’s UFP is auto bounce with no damage for the most part.
I’ve also marked you a huge area on the Merkava that always produces huge amounts of damage, and I think that area is at the very least the same size as M1’s turret ring.
Turret is also very thin and much worse than on M1s.
I did this while using Centauro, a vehicle with very similar layout as Merkava and it’s surely better than the “normal” way.
But, in Merkava’s case, you’re trading every piece of armor (engine) you have. Hull ammo racks are at the very back and you are now taking shots to the side.
That driver’s port is a weakspot of it’s own on 2A4.
On M1 it basically blends with the turret ring.
I think by how much is irrelevant as it’s still good for it’s BR and shouldn’t change.
Again, I can’t know that as I never used it.
Well, you can effectively shoot anywhere on the hull of the Merkava and deal some damage.
You can also shoot at that top portion of the hull to more likely 1-shot it, like you said.
So you can either not care about its armour and shoot anywhere (that may not cause a 1-shot), or you go for the devastating weakspot (that causes the 1-shot).
In the first case, which to be honest is what most people do, it may be annoying that the armour is abysmal but you are most likely still alive and able to fight back - hence being more survivable.
In the second case, they need to aim for its 1-shot area, which is effectively as good as avoiding the fact that it has no armour in the first place.
I can’t say the same for the Ariete and sometimes for the Chally 2s since centre mass shots for either of them are a lot more likely to 1-shot than for the Merkava, which you need to shoot above the engine to get the most consistent 1-shot kill.
The hull armour is definitely more abysmal than the Abrams’, but you’re survivable in a way that if both had no armour to speak of (which the Merakava already doesn’t), then I’d bet you’d have a harder time 1-shotting the Merkava than the Abrams, since the Merkava’s engine can absorb some of the spalling, and is larger than the Abrams.
That’s at least how I see it.
Sure, and that’s when I think it’s logical (mostly for any vehicle though) to be peaking out like that when you know they won’t shoot you (if at all) in time before you get back into cover.
This goes for everything, including the BVM, and 2A7), other than maybe the T-90M (it can’t reverse back into cover nearly as easily).
Not that I see. They both blend into the UFP (with the same plate representing everything for each vehicle), with some bumps that allow rounds to go through where anywhere else it would just ricochet.
I’m saying that the 2A4 is already above that level of good for its BR, hence why it would make sense to either nerf the 2A4 (by giving it DM13), or by buffing the Abrams (by giving it M833).
If you don’t like the second suggestion, then the other is still an option.
You said it yourself: It trades 11% worse penetration for 20% faster reload rate.
In other words: You want the M1 to be superior to it’s contemporaries, but suffer no Battle Rating adjustments.
‘‘Favouritism’’
1 Like
You missed the giant turret ring.
The weakspot that causes max spalling out of any part of either MBTs (very easy to 1-shot through it), can be penned by 30mm APFSDS, and destroys multiple modules (breech, horizontal / vertical drive and sometimes even the engine).
If it didn’t have that issue, then I would 100% agree that the Abrams has better armour than the Leo 2A4.
6 Likes
Because the Leopard 2A4 doesn’t have MAJOR deficiencies in turret protection of it’s own?
The mantlet is roughly twice the size of the M1 Abrams, it’s equivalent protection is around 100mm lower, the gunner’s sights on the right side of the vehicle are significantly weaker than any spot of the M1’s turret and the area beneath the gunner’s sights are also significantly weaker.
This added up ensures that the Leopard 2A4 presents a much larger vulnerable area than the M1 does.
1 Like
Turret weakspots are not constant, unlike the Abrams’ turret ring weakspot.
You can wiggle the turret to your heart’s content, which can make hitting those spots harder.
Breech shots only allow for 2-shots, and rarely cause 1-shots (even if shot in the lower portion of it).
The hull 1-shot area is not as reliable or easily accessable as the 1-shot area around the turret ring of the Abrams.
You can hide those weakspots easier hull-down than with the Abrams.
The left cheek is actually quite similar, if not worse when facing one another with 120mm DM23 and M774:
2 Likes
Abrams’ turret ring can be hidden whilst still being in a position with direct line of sight to an enemy.
Leopard 2A4’s turret weakspots are always visible and vulnerable when it has a direct line of sight to it’s enemy.
The total protected area of a 2A4 is extremely minor in general:
This is also why I don’t understand why Gaijin has not implemented a C-technologie Leopard 2A4 yet.
The US already has it’s counterparts in the form of the IPM1 and M1A1.
If someone fails to strike the football field that is the Leopard 2A4’s mantlet, it’s purely a certified Skill Issue™.
Just like the turret ring of an M1.
Anywhere on the right side guaranteed 3/4 crew being knocked out on a 2A4, that’s the major issue with the driver being situated off-centre and in a direct line with the gunner/commander.
The M1 meanwhile has a massively better armoured hull in general, alongside armoured fuel tanks which are coded as being external, meaning they will never cause the loss of the vehicle.
Furthermore, most Leo 2’s carry in excess of 15 rounds, that guarantees the hull is also vulnerable via exposed ammunition stowage, yet another reason why the M1 is more survivable, and has been since it was introduced.
The problem lies in that it’s one-shot area is at the very least the same size and probably even bigger than on M1s. They pretty much share the same position on the tank as well, so Merkava is basically an M1 with even bigger (to me at least) devastating weakspot.
This area will also be more visible as it’s higher up and can’t be hidden as well as lower parts can.
Agreed, those two are in the league of their own, as their survivability can barely be measured.
If the UFP of M1 wasn’t bouncing shots I’d agree.
I believe it’s easier to totally cripple Merkava than M1 though.
That’s the general rule, yeah.
At least most of those you mentioned have spall liners or ERA bags that can reduce the spalling.
Driver’s port on 2A4 is on a plate that can’t be penned usually. It’s also under the part of the cheek that can withstand some impacts.
On M1, driver’s port is right under the breech and turret ring while sitting high enough on the UFP for rounds to bounce up into the turret ring.
Not in my opinion though.
In complete hull-down positions, sure.
Though you need to make sure that you don’t expose anything at all, otherwise you’re completely screwed.
The 2A4 can overexpose ( and not get 1-shotted as easily as when you do the same with the Abrams, ) from all the way up to the upper UFP, which is just the auto-ricochet.
And then you have to take into account the survivability of each, and their weakspots.
The fact that the 3 crew members is to the right-hand side is definitely issue, but can also be a benefit in another scenario.
Shoot the right-side UFP / LFP, the best you’d get is the loader and engine.
Shoot the turret (anywhere), you’ll almost never 1-shot, just like with the Abrams’ turret.
And both turrets are extremely easy to pen with anything as good as 3BM42, which is plentiful other than for the M1 Abrams, PT-16, and the Leopards.
If that’s a certified skill issue, imagine how big of a skill issue it would be to miss a non-moving weakspot the size of a city.
I don’t know what world you live in but I’m pretty sure you’re more likely to 1-shot, or at least severely cripple, by shooting the exposed turret ring of any tank than that of the turret cheeks, let alone the breech.
The sides of the LFP of the Abrams’, sure I could see that not 1-shotting the vehicle, but the centre-mass shot on the Abrams’ LFP, especially with things like 3BM42, is much more easy.
Then we move onto any situation where either aren’t hull down, and the turret ring becomes a massive issue again - which is conveniently a constant weakspot, and damages / completely destroys key components (unlike the UFP / LFP of the 2A4).
I sometimes see players hold 3 rounds or so in the hull of the 2A4, but I don’t think you need more than 16 rounds in a match, especially when you can just re-arm on capture points.
In some cases you can’t, in which you must rely on your teammates, or your ability to fend off enemies from a point. That should be relatively easy when you realise you’re a pretty good MBT for brawling.
The Abrams is generally better in flanks but is worse in brawling situations, due to the turret ring weakspot.
3 Likes