the statistics speak for themselves man… anyone saying they dont is straight up coping and coping hard. Abrams deserves to be fun to play its the most recognisible tank on earth and tbh just about all of them are pretty mid but the 1st one especially is TRASH. well done on getting those stats
To be fair, Gaijin didn’t even balance it by adding the original design of the BMPT with Kontact-5 but instead the 2017 upgraded variant as well as the obvious stuff such as the inability to kill it by detonating the ammo chain to the gun. I’ve been fighting it up even at 12.7 and it does just as well there as it does at 11.3. It’s disgusting Gaijin added it at an even lower BR but it did boost sales.
I do enjoy the fact Gaijin clearly modeled the variable thickness of the M1 turret ring in the armor analysis but gave it a flat armor value as if it isn’t. It’s the same armor protection logic as the tracks as it only provides the same protection as it is thick and not wide (20mm v whatever tank track).
Typically, that train of thought comes from Russian mains who don’t want to have to struggle like every other nation does. I mean hell, just look at the upcoming update where Gaijin is giving every other nation full damage models for their MBTs but not Russia nor have their autoloader system modeled (unless it just got added to the DEV server). Funny that the BMPT gets it but not the actual tanks its based upon XD I will say, the XM264 was slaughtering tanks at that BR with APDS. I personally think AA should get a limited amount of AP rounds just for balancing but this would also nerf things like the 2S38 (which is a SPAA IRL but it’s a light tank to prevent low SP to spawn. That’s just a weirdly broken tank gameplay wise and they shouldn’t have added and I own it. Maybe putting it as a 12.0 foldered SPAA with 20 AP rounds would be fine but I’m working my way up to test that theory). In regard to the spall liner, I swear it’s a way to get someone to leak information. It’s obvious the spall liner is part of the NERA as poly is listed in the material (which, if it’s borated poly, also doubles as a radiation liner but isn’t a thing for the game). The export models actually use rubber for this purpose. But that’s just a theory, ~a conspiracy theory!~ But we also see the armored wall for the fuel tank in the Abrams throws spall everywhere when a round punches through (which is only 19mm or 3/4th an inch), which is something the T-series don’t have to deal with in their damage model. It, in fact, eats ALL spall until it hits something else.
Granted, these are from a M1150 ABV, but it uses a similar armor profile to the actual Abrams. That huge gap we have should clearly be a second row of armor plates that Gaijin hasn’t added and there’s a gap in the damage model. It’s like how the breach armor is lacking because there’s a huge chunk of metal that Gaijin hasn’t added in front of the trunnion and the bug report got denied because “we don’t know the material”.
I’d give the props to the statshark team. Whoever programmed that to get the data out of War Thunder is the goat for that. I just copied it into a table xD
M900 would absolutely cause the M1 to move up to at least 11.0, what in the normie take did I just read.
1 Like
Literally why? The M10 and M1128 have it at the same BR or lower. Seeing how it’s already fighting 3BM60/DM33, seems like a fair rounds.
1 Like
Are you seriously comparing the M1 to the M1128, which is significantly worse in every way besides pen and thermals?
And yeah the M10 has it at 10.7, but that thing is easy mode and arguably should be 11.0 already.
The M1 is already easily one of the best 10.7 MBTs alongside the 2A4, Vickers Mk.7 and T-80B. So buffing it would definitely move it up.
3 Likes
Ill do you one better, Leo2A4M has same round as M60 AMBT, yet it sits 1.7 BR higher.
Why is that?
It is literally the worst performing MBT at its BR, and that’s not even an exaggeration.
1 Like
Just checked statshark and it performed similar if not better than the German 2A4 in february.
It’s probably one of the highest potential MBTs at 10.7 together with the 2A4, problem is that the average major nation players are idiots.
Probably due to the hull it’s on and the fact it’s a rarely played tank (in all of February, it has 27.4k games) versus the 2A4M (at 820.1k games). It can’t even do anything to protect against 3BM22. This is the same debate as the 2S25M having 3BM60 at the same BR but at least that one is a TT version.
1 Like
And yet you wonder why M1 with M900 would be entirely different matter to M10/M1128?
Tbf, saying the 2A4 is a wide margin of result. The German one does poorly but the same exact tank in the French tree is #2 (with 1.52/1.37 KD/KS v the M1’s 1.11/1.00)
1 Like
Except the M1 does jack diddly against protecting itself against anything but CE at its BR. Hence why having a good round would make sense to make up for the lack of armor. Now it gets poor armor AND a poor round… what sense does that make?
2 Likes
Not my experience but I digress.
A) armor isnt as bad as you make it out to be
B) you know what compensates the lack of pen when compared to 2A4? 5 sec ace reload (5.3 expert crew with fully trained loader).
M900 would make it pen more and reload faster than 2A4 and would lead to BR increase.
And in my experience, it fights a lot of superior things like 3BM60, which literally can’t fail to pen it frontally, and DM23/L26 which usually is more than enough to punch through at the game’s engagement distances. That’s not including that gaijin won’t fix the turret ring even though there’s clear evidence the turret sits inside the ring in open source information and their 3D even has the turret floating well above the turret ring.
Do tell, how is it not? It’s got a subpar armor profile for what it fights against (tanks literally designed to counter it or even better versions of the Abrams/Leopard 2/Challanger) and a broken turret ring that even 30mm will punch through like a hot knife through butter.
Ah yes, because failing to pen the target is totally not going to end with you immediately getting hit and/or dying… Tbf, the 5 second reload time is the LONGEST a loader can take to qualify. If we wanted to be pedantic, the stock reload should be 5 seconds and only get better.
1 Like
And you dont get to respawn IRL when 4kgs of tungsten fly through your cranium, your point being?
This is a game and manual reload time is soft balancing factor, which was stated several times.
You can compare my performance through statshark - sessions and look up my performance from 22 nov up until now. Ive played both 2A4, T-80UD and both KVT and TT M1 (which I spaded around that time).
If the M1/KVT is the worst of the bunch, shouldnt I logically perform the worst with it out of all aforentiomed tanks, as opposed to my current performance with it?
I’m just saying, the reload speed being why it doesn’t get a better round is a poor argument. If that’s the case, the T-90A should get a worse round because it has better armor.
And cool? I’ve been playing them all as well (minus the 2A4. Been running other TTs other than Germany lately) and I do better than average with all of them. Does that negate the fact the tank is the worst performing of all the MBTs around 10.7 for the community? With that argument, I say the T-90A should lose 3BM60 because I’ve been doing just fine with just 3BM42. Hell, give me like 30 minutes and I’ll make a table with all the 10.7 MBTs
Which comes back to the point I made earlier. Major nation players on average perform considerably worse than minor nation players.
It’s a pattern across multiple vehicles in multiple nations at multiple BRs.
Tanks like the T-72A/B and T-64B also fight M829A1. Should all these tanks now receive 3BM46?
And much worse reverse and gun handling.
Average global KD according to statshark is around what, 0.6?
Average WT player is sub 80 IQ flesh golem.
No wonder that tank that requires some nuance to use is unusable to average WT player, which is reflected by global stats.
Im merely wanting an explanation from you.
Logically, the tank with objectively worst attributes should be hardest to perform well in, and logically, if person can do well in worst tank of the bunch, they should be able to do amazing in much better tank. Yet that is not the case.
And this is performance with all big three MBTs from single person from the same timeframe.
M1/KVT often had better (or same) K/D than 80B, but I guess that better round and armor is super important for stats lol. Only exception is January, possibly due to BMPT.
Cool? You mean the vehicle that’s automatically aced and that anybody can buy and run? It could be because the amount of people running it to grind a TT after maxing out another, meaning they’re going to perform better. Does that mean that the Leopard 2 is better than the Challanger DS/Challanger Mk 3/Vickers Mk 7 just because only the Leopard 2 (OTCo) performs better than the British line?
Here’s literally every MBT excluding premiums over the past 7 months
