M1 is fine as is at 10.7.
IPM1 should be 11.7.
M1A1 should be 12.0. It is an equal to the Leclerc, and Leclerc should be 12.0 as well.
M1A1 HC specs should be 12.7.
5 Likes
i never said it was, and even then, it has mobility that works fine at that higher BR, and the T-90 has it at 0.7 higher
i don’t know what you’re thinking, because it does
just because it doesn’t have best mobility doesn’t mean it has bad mobility, it it still more than plenty to work in urban environments
Noone says the Charioteer is immobile because Bulldog exists at its BR
T-80U and T-80UD effectively identical armour
Good armour, good shell, decent mobility, a now good reload, only thing stopping it being truely veratile is the reverse and gun depression
1 Like
What if we throw v3 in the mix and say max br is 13.3 for a bit of breathing room to anticipate the future?
I would ask what those would be in your opinion but it doesn’t matter as both our previous opinions are irrelevant now it has a buff.
It genuinly has no right being the same BR as the T64B xD
How can you be measuring the speeds of these vehicles with not accoutning in variables like crews and such, then claim i got a faster time because of the ace crew.
Then admit teh times on teh video are wrong.
You’ve essentially just invalidated your entire spreadsheet… then said trust me bro the final times are accurate, cause I say so?
Oh also, you may wanna actually drive in a straight line and test the speeds properly. Your tests look bogus af
that was my point that the mobility is considered Ok for a russian MBT at 11.0 then it should be considered good for a 10.3 russian MBT
Almost identical or identical alst I checked.
As CAS is Balanced already said, the M1 is fine, IPM1 could go to 11.7, M1A1 could/should go to 12.0 and the M1A1 HC/M1A2 should almost definitely go to 12.3-12.7.
The only thing I would change about the Abrams is fixing the turret ring to be more resistant against auto cannons, but I’m not sure if that counts as a hard buff or more as a quality of life improvement.
However, I still think the SEPv3 should have been added 2 years ago together with the Leo 2A7(s) as a counterpart.
2 Likes
afaik as it was pointed out to me, UD is missing 15mm of some antiradiation layer, which apparently makes difference with M829.
depends whenever you believe in the whole “faster gun laying and having to go for weakspots vs. being able to lolpen but having worse gun handling” thing when it comes to time to kill.
I test everything with an expert crew, so it is fair. I also have tank driving maxed on every tank I test, so it is fair.
Go ahead, test them all, if you want to make corrections, do so. The sheet is constantly changing as I correct mistakes, however UD time will stay as it is. However, most of the mistakes in the sheet are corrected.
the m829A2 can UFP the T80UD as well as the 80U last i checked.
The m82A1 has 600MM of pen, it should UFP a T80UD as well.
But again 600MM of pen is not what you see at 10.7 on average.
Why balance the IPM1 so high, btw? The round or the armour? Do you think there’s a place for an early M1E1 between the IPM1 and M1?
1 Like
You realise this statement contradicts itself.
I don’t need to correct your random ass data sheet of poorly collected tank speeds which are absolutely incosequential to the actual mobility of the vehicles in game.
you need to pick identical conditions and drive identically to keep the speed test identical.
If not you are changing variables which inevitably will change the outcomes.
That’s basic test conditions lol
Careful, I said M829, not M829A2 or M829A1.
M829 struggles to UFP the T80UD last I used it but could be different now adays
now why do you think that wasnt the case?
1 Like
For a start, the movements he makes during the video of the T80UD you cannot tell me he can perfectly replicate each on each time for each vehicle.
They have to be, as I said, going in a straight line.
As well as his own admissions further up there are errors and such, He cannot broadcast his “data” that only he has collected in conditions in which he sets.
The T80UD as I said for me is nearly a full 2 seconds faster if not over 2 seconds faster to 60KMPH the aced crew doesn’t account for that.
It’ll thrive there, I use it specifically at 10.7 and it’s one of my best earners for the BR
I don’t think it matters at all, it’ll live, maybe not thrive at 10.7, where it can’t cause such a ruckus at 9.3
I start ahead of that object, and press W. I do not touch anything else. The conditions are pretty much identical for every single test I do, however, with WT’s driver, the gear changes have a small amount of RNG in them, so it is not uncommon for there to be a + - 0.1-0.2 difference.
1 Like
It’s pretty much a combination of mobility and firepower. It’s pretty close to the Type 90 in terms of capability. Having a 1 second slower reload for a better round, better gun handling, more flexible gun depression and better protection.
I mean an M1E1 with M829 could technically be added at 11.0 as long as it gets a 6 second reload.
Hell people talk about the 2A4 getting DM33 and moving to 11.0, an M1E1 with M829 and a 6 second reload would be the perfect counterpart for that.
1 Like
You can, if you want. Since clearly everything on the sheet is wrong, according to you.
UD will not change as I hit that object, and it changed the time.
“pretty much” identical is not identical.
going by the fact my T80UD is nearly a whole 2 seconds faster to the speed then obviously it will change.
No one said it’s all wrong, but the reliability of it, through even your own admissions of errors and such is absolutely thrown out the window.
You know what, my mistake, it is IDENTICAL.
Your UD is aced. There is a note on the sheet next to the M1A1 saying (Aced, retest with Expert). It affects the time, and so I have to find someone with an experted M1A1, as mine is aced and I don’t want to waste SL crewing and experting it.