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

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

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.

I guess so.

I still think that the survivability is better in situations where you have no hull ammo, and can side-scrape as a result of it.

The empty space in the rear often doesn’t create that much spalling to get to the crew in the turret, as well.

@MotorolaCRO

I believe it’s easier to totally cripple Merkava than M1 though.

In some ways sure, since the Merkava has much less usable armour, so you can hit anything and (more likely than not) will destroy that module and maybe some more.

I just don’t think that upper hull shot on the Merkava is as devastating as the turret ring shot on the M1A2.
I think there’s a smaller chance that you 1-shot through that spot on the Merkava than on the spot of the Abrams’, but they’re probably quite similar.
You may or may not destroy the engine with that shot, similar with the Abrams’, but you are less likely to destroy the turret ring / vertical drive, and almost impossible to destroy the breech compared to the Abrams’ turret ring shot.

@MotorolaCRO

At least most of those you mentioned have spall liners or ERA bags that can reduce the spalling.

Yup.
Can’t say the same about the M1A2 or the Merkava, unfortunately.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Yeah, I can’t say that either of them are actual weakspots, but they sometimes can be depending on the range (which goes for the entire plate they’re both a part of) and your luck on whether or not you hit those bumps around each of them.

@MotorolaCRO

Not in my opinion though.

Well, I’ve expressed my opinion that the 2A4 has slightly better armour (if not the same), and better survivability, at the cost of slightly worse mobility and a gun that’s usefulness depends on the target and situation - like the Abrams’.
They’re both good, don’t get me wrong, but I would like to see a nerf to the 2A4, or a slight buff to the Abrams if the 2A4 is fine at where it’s at and what it has.

If a buff to the round, that the Abrams gets access to, is completely not an option (though I doubt that), then I think at least buffing its turret ring such that it’s around ~200mm thick is also fine, since ~62mm is abysmal, and just lets autocannons delete the Abrams, and lets rounds spall their max amount (especially in Top Tier), and / or maybe nerfing the 2A4, such that it only gets access to DM13.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

I still think that the survivability is better in situations where you have no hull ammo, and can side-scrape as a result of it.

Merkava is definitely better for side-scraping in that scenario.
I’m mostly talking about the frontal engagements in which both are quite vulnerable to one-shot hits and even share the same area in which that can be done effectively.

@rainy2000

I just don’t think that upper hull shot on the Merkava is as devastating as the turret ring shot on the M1A2.
I think there’s a smaller chance that you 1-shot through that spot on the Merkava than on the spot of the Abrams’, but they’re probably quite similar.

I can’t say for sure but both will suffer crippling damage from shots there.
Anything to the left or right under the gun and relatively high will nuke your engine and 3 crew in turret or engine, horizontal drive and gunner/commander or gunner/commander/breech, etc.

This area even extends to the turret, which is even worse.

@rainy2000

then I think at least buffing its turret ring such that it’s around ~200mm thick is also fine, since ~62mm is abysmal, and just lets autocannons delete the Abrams, and lets rounds spall their max amount (especially in Top Tier).

Turret ring could receive a buff as it seems highly unrealistic.

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

Merkava is definitely better for side-scraping in that scenario.
I’m mostly talking about the frontal engagements in which both are quite vulnerable to one-shot hits and even share the same area in which that can be done effectively.

Fair enough.

@MotorolaCRO

I can’t say for sure but both will suffer crippling damage from shots there.
Anything to the left or right under the gun and relatively high will nuke your engine and 3 crew in turret or engine, horizontal drive and gunner/commander or gunner/commander/breech, etc.

This area even extends to the turret, which is even worse.

Fair enough.
Yes, the shot under the gun is also quite crippling, if not a 1-shot.
I didn’t take that into account.

I think if the Merkava had its actual armour values (apparently), it would probably be better than the M1A2 / M1A1 HC / CB (even if they had that ~200mm thick turret ring).
At the moment though, I am sorta leaning towards them being equal in capabilities, at least for the BRs.
I don’t think the Merkava should be 0.3 BR lower than the M1A2, but I can see why the M1A2 could be better in certain situations, if not most.

One thing I’d like to add:
Putting bushes to completely conceal the turret ring on the Abrams is actually quite useful, though I don’t have any bushes of my own.
It may not completetly help, since the turret ring is a constant weakspot, but it can, at least, sorta hide the boundaries between the turret lip, turret ring, and UFP.

@MotorolaCRO

Turret ring could receive a buff as it seems highly unrealistic.

Agreed.

[BeautifulTai_wan]

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Leclerc hull can’t even stop 105mm M774 at extreme angles on the upper plate. It’s got hull armor on the level of Ariete.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

I think if the Merkava had its actual armour values (apparently), it would probably be better than the M1A2 / M1A1 HC / CB (even if they had that ~200mm thick turret ring).

I think we can expect them to fix Merkava’s armor in this decade lol.

@rainy2000

I don’t think the Merkava should be 0.3 BR lower than the M1A2, but I can see why the M1A2 could be better in certain situations, if not most.

It’s for the best to keep them at 12.0 while decompressing that BR so better tanks are finally pushed up.
They’re definitely at least on par with M1s and seeing latter ones sitting at a lower BR is egregious.

@rainy2000

Putting bushes to completely conceal the turret ring on the Abrams is actually quite useful, though I don’t have any bushes of my own.

I like to collect bushes from BP crates. Some smaller vehicles look really ridiculous when totally bushed up.

[MechaZelis]

@Dinfire

I don’t care what you say

At least we know you’re beyond reason and thus not worth reasoning with then.

[Dinfire]

@Necrons31467

In other words: You want the M1 to be superior to it’s contemporaries, but suffer no Battle Rating adjustments.

‘‘Favouritism’’

Liar.

It’s called balance. It’s not even OP.

[Dinfire]

@MechaZelis

At least we know you’re beyond reason and thus not worth reasoning with then.

You were unreasonable to begin with.

[Dinfire]

@rainy2000

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).

The ring only made larger on the A1, and we still haven’t seen it fixed, even though it’s been acknowledged. The only advantage the M1 has is its turret ring is thin enough it might bounce 30mm rounds at close range (as they all should).

And even a year after the acknowledgement we still have NO FIXES.

So, this tells us these naysayers are about as full of it as the rest.

And once again, M833 wouldn’t be OP enough for them to move it up in BR bracket. It’s literally them making circular arguments to bless off the company for not doing as they said they would.

Instead, we get an “Auction”. Sorry, but last I checked I wasn’t here to compete for skins.

[MechaZelis]

Til this is a very unreasonable response to you

[MrBombastic8]

Dm33 105 is better than m833 tho
m833 with public test shown to be ~410mm rha equilvalent
gaijin calculator butchered it
if m833 was 410mm flat pen then i wouldnt say anything but its not
and its worse than dm33

[Dinfire]

And again you repeat the same STUPID reasoning you did at the beginning.

There’s no reason to put it up in BR.

You’re the one saying it.

And even a year after the acknowledgement of turret ring weakness, we still have NO FIXES.

So stop yapping excuses.

[leprianto]

You assume that a round worse than what the German and USSR MBTs get would be enough for the M1 to be at 11.0, based on a one-second advantage that most players don’t even have.

[Necrons31467]

@leprianto

based on a one-second advantage that most players don’t even have.

M1 on Expert crew is 5.3s, Leo 2A4 on Expert crew is 6.4s.
Fully untrained crews actually give the M1 a 1.3s advantage.

So the reload rate advantage for the M1 Abrams is actually greater than 1s if people are using poorly trained crews.

@leprianto

You assume that a round worse than what the German and USSR MBTs get would be enough for the M1 to be at 11.0

The M1 Abrams has always been one of the best performing 10.3’s / 10.7’s in the game, if people believe that’s not sufficient and that it should be buffed even further, they better understand that it might be a monkey’s paw situation and have the M1 moved up to 11.0 as a result.

If that happens, I’ll be here saying: ‘‘I told you so, couldn’t leave ‘good enough’ alone, right?’’.

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

it should be buffed even further, they better understand that it might be a monkey’s paw situation and have the M1 moved up to 11.0 as a result.

So would these buffs even include justifiable bug fixes like;
the erroneous inclusion of the Hydraulic reservoir in the pump module, or the Turret ring for example.

Or additional mechanics being modeled like digital Zoom for (Thermal) optics, or Pyrophoricity for DU projectiles.

Anyway it (the M1 basic) getting moved up would fundamentally break lineups (M60 TTS / M60-120S / MBT-70 don’t compare) so its not happening at least until the BRs above it are decompressed. And even then M833 barely an improvement and even M900 At 11.0 won’t improve that much considering how widespread 3BM42 / -46 / -60 and assorted 120mm rounds are at 11.0+.

And the IPM1 is better in many respects, or otherwise similar.

@Necrons31467

I’ll be here saying: ‘‘I told you so, couldn’t leave ‘good enough’ alone, right?’’.

That’s the thing, it’s not. It’s clearly sub par at best in the hand of the standard player.

[rainy2000]

Tech tree and Prem M1 Abrams is actually performing worse than tech tree and prem Leo 2A4 in the Swedish tech tree (which both tech tree having ~3000 battles played, and both prem having ~5000 battles).
I will assume that greater the number of battles played, the greater the proportion of bad / worse players are playing those vehicles, so this means that despite Sweden’s prem 2A4 having 6857 battles (1610 more games than the KVT, so technically greater proportion of ‘bad’ players are using it than the KVT), it still has a better KPS than the KVT.

It’s not fair to compare the tech tree German 2A4 with the tech tree Abrams, since one has 6557 battles played, whereas the other has only 3240. Same for the Prem versions of each (though again, same thing as for Sweden, in which the KPS is better for the prem 2A4 than the prem KVT, despite larger proportion of ‘bad’ / ‘worse’ players).
Same thing with the Italian 2A4, which is a nation mostly played by more experienced players (since newer players go for the main nations first), and so it’s only 1156 battles played, and so it makes sense that it has a 2.24 KPS - better than any vehicle stats presented, despite being the same vehicle as the other Leos.

So Sweden is the most compatible to compare stats with USA than the other nations since it probably has the most similar experience player to inexperience player composition out of the other nations, when compared to USA. No other nation has the Abrams other than the USA, too, so if an experienced player wants to play the Abrams, they must play USA, unlike for the 2A4 and its main nation - Germany.

So, this suggests that the 2A4 is generally a better vehicle (at least for average players), and so it means that it would either be reasonable to buff the Abrams by giving it M833 or buffing its turret ring (which apparently is not an option, since it’s already ‘one of the best MBTs’ at 10.7 and is ‘already good enough’) or to nerf the 2A4, whether it by giving it DM33 and moving it up to 11.0 (now) / 11.3 (after further decompression), or only giving it access to DM13 and keeping it at 10.7. You could also balance it in other ways, but those are the only two that I could think of as of yet.

Edit:

Funnily enough, like I expected, after the BR changes the 10.3 MBTs no longer can face squishy 9.3s, which means that the Abrams is missing out on more kills (than it used to have) because of the 5s reload instead of the 6s reload / 7.1s reload of other 10.3s, now that it’s 10.7.

And so before the BR changes, the KPS difference between the Swedish STRV121 (2A4) and the M1 Abrams looks to be smaller, but the 2A4’s is still better.

I’d also add the fact that the 10.7 Abrams has a worse win rate than the 10.3 Abrams (back then), but I’m not too sure what is the reason other than because of the lack of 9.3 squishy tanks that the 10.3 Abrams used to stomp and win matches against.

[Necrons31467]

@tripod2008

So would these buffs even include justifiable bug fixes like;

Bug fixes =/= Buffs.

You’re probably well aware that I have several bug reports on the M1’s as well.
I very much would’ve liked to have seen those fixed years ago. However, the M1’s adversaties also have numerous bugs of their own which should be addressed.

At the same time we should keep in mind that it’s very likely that the UFP is overperforming, and if Gaijin were to address/rework critical angle ricochet mechanics the UFP could become extremely vulnerable to the more modern APFSDS rounds found at higher BR’s.

In the meantime, the M1 has consistently shown itself to have among the best statistics of any of the 10.3 / 10.7 MBT’s, aside from that it’s overall attributes also put it ahead of any of it’s competition:

@tripod2008

That’s the thing, it’s not. It’s clearly sub par

[Necrons31467]

If Italy, Israel or Japan were to receive a tech tree M1 Abrams, I’d bet that thing would skyrocket towards some of the best statistics of any vehicle in it’s BR bracket.

[rainy2000]

Then you’d compare those stats with Italy’s 2A4.

I’m comparing USA’s with Sweden’s, which (again) have much more similar player competence composition than something like Germany or Italy - so there’s basically your answer.

Also comparing armour values like that completely misses the nuance.
It makes it seem like the M1 Abrams doesn’t have a massive turret ring weakspot, even though it does.
Same with the lack of anything about survivability - other than the safety of ammunition.
The T-80 would be by far one of the worst - and the 2A4 / Abrams would be on par, if not, the Abrams being worse.
And then some features matter more than others.
I wouldn’t care much about the difference between 40 degrees per second of gun elevation over 24 degrees per second, but I would care much more about the armour and survivability, for example.

[DargorDraconis]

There Is only One way to know It
Give to Italy the Romanian Abrams but i don’t think It Will happen