Do you have any proof of that? Or are you just making it up as per usual?
Because the 2A7s and 122s exist.
If you want to be taken seriously when talking about overall top tier ground balance, you should A) actually master the top tier tanks you have and B) grind some of the other top tier MBTs you love to talk about so much.
So you are saying that every single tank not currently the 2A7 and 122 should be a lower BR? Then why shouldn’t the M1A2s be 12.3 and nearly everyone else 12.0?
Though even comparing M1A2 to 2A7 and 122, it’s far far closer than most as the Abrams have superior firepower and mobility to the Leopards
Ignored my comment because you can’t prove it?
I would prefer to move the 2A7s and Strv 122s to 13.0 alone, pending counterparts like the CR3 prototype and SEPv3 etc to join them at 13.0.
The mobility of these tanks is not significantly different. The Abrams has considerably better firepower while the 2A7s/122s have considerably better armor and survivability.
And added bonus is that the 2A7/122 have HE, which incredibly strong against the Abrams.
The current M1A1 HC and M1A2 already should be 12.3, I don’t think that is the gotcha you think it is when I have been saying the same thing for ever since 12.7 got introduced.
Objective facts. They have better time to target within average ranges for GRB. What evidence is really needed beyond opening your eyes. Even in most common ARB ranges, R-77-1 holds that advantage
As for multipathing, I thought they were identical but xeno actually corrected me before that R-77-1 does have an advantage
They also have a larger warhead which can be useful for killing things flying too low, much like Aim-54
1 Like
So, why aren’t they equal?
If you actually read his comment, he even said, if anything it’s a minor benefit if anything at all.
So who needs to open their eyes?
R-77-1 imho is good in short 6km or less.
Aim-120Bs will out pace them in longer ranges with ease, and honestly I do believe they track far better, no I don’t have evidence to prove it, but my KDr of R-77-1s vs AIM-120Bs is heavily tilted towards the Aim-120s
This post was brought to you by: Someone who doesn’t even play the game
And only has 2 top tier vehicles
1 Like
A minor advantage is a still a minor advtange. Especially if we compare Su-30SM2 with ESA Vs F15E with M-Scan as half decent multiroles within the context of GRB, The ESA DL advantage is quite notable too.
It is an objective and quantifiable fact that R-77-1 fired from Su-30Sm2 would perform better in GRB than F15E or F16C firing Aim-120
Like I get it. Soviet suffer. But maybe it’s just a skill issue on your part
1 Like
For GRB the vastly superior armor and survivability of the 2A7/122 outweigh the firepower advantage of the Abrams.
There are no tanks that even come close to the combination of armor+survivability+mobility+firepower that these tanks have, while there are quite a few tanks that at least come close to the combination of mobility+firepower that the Abrams has.
I know it’s shocking what you can learn about MBTs when you actually play them.
1 Like
So, now compare M1A2 to literally everything else
Maybe a hair of a fraction. That’s literally pulling straws.
How would that be a skill issue?
I preform better with the worse vehicle / weapons in your opinion?
THANK GOD SOMEONE WHO SEES THE WORLD AS I DO
1 Like
Okay (just to make it clear, I’m using the SEPv1/SEPv2 in the comparison, but I’ll just say M1A2 since I’m lazy)
M1A2 vs Type 10
Similar mobility. Type 10 wins in firepower, profile and hull down capability, Abrams wins in turret armor and versatility (less overall depression, but better gun handling and no need to use the clunky suspension). Neither are especially survivable.
M1A2 is still the better tank, but it’s not a massive gap.
M1A2 vs Leclerc
M1A2 vs Leclerc: Similar mobility and firepower is a sidegrade (M1A2 has more pen, but 5 seconds autoloader beats 5 second manual loader any day). Leclerc is smaller profile but weaker turret armor while the Abrams is larger but has better turret armor. Again, neither has much survivability to write home about.
Same as above, the M1A2 still comes out on top but it’s not a big gap.
M1A2 vs Merkava Mk.4
M1A2 has slightly better forward mobility, Merkava has considerably better reverse mobility. Firepower is pretty much equal. M1A2 has more consistent turret armor while the Merkava has better overall survivability.
These tanks are really really close (just a shame that the Spyder is so bad it makes playing Israel 12.7 a pain)
M1A2 vs CR2
(still unlocking the BN and 2E, so most of my experience is with the CR2/CR2 OES/CR3 TD)
M1A2 beats the BN in terms of mobility and firepower. The CR2s get a slight boost in survivability due to the spall liners and no turret basket. BN has the APS which is incredible at longer ranges.
CR2E is closer to the M1A2 in mobility, but loses the APS.
First comparison where the M1A2 is better with a considerable gap
These are the most comparable tanks to the M1A2s. I’m not even going to waste my time comparing the M1A2 to the Ariete AMV, T-90M and T-72B3A, as these 3 are obviously much worse than the M1A2.
1 Like
Not my ariete!
1 Like
So then the russian top tier round, first found at 11.0 , is the same round found at 12.7, which pales in comparison to the americans who get a 600 flat pen round at 10.3?
what is your point.
scuse me what? xD
the A1 beats 3BM60 quite easily?
-
it’s 600 flat pen to 347 angle pen at 60 degrees.
-
3BM60 only has 580 flat pen and 335 angle pen.
Again why are you lying
3BM60 is substantially worse than the M829A1 never mind the A2 which is literally the highest penning round when fired out of an L/44 caliber cannon (aka barrel length, DM53 out the leopard 2a5, 2pl etc all have lower penetration, only out of the A6 and A7 variant do they get the higher pen).
Where did I say that’s all the wolfpack has going for it? I said about the Sprut having 3BM60 was about all it has going for it as it’s pathetic in mostly every other regard, bar maybe thermal imager quality.
The 10.3 with M829A1 doesn’t count for you or what?
might I add with a five second aced reload, at 10.3.
WIth one of the highest penning rounds in game lol.
the leopard 2A4 holds up extremely well in uptiers wtf are you on about? xD it’s one and only draw back is it’s DM23 if it had DM33 or DM43 it would instantly be 11.0 if not higher.
it’s a fantastic tank, 7th most mobile in the game if we use @CAS_is_Bаlаnced chart, which yes I critiqued but it’s still better than anything else we have seen.
You’ve got a 23 percent win rate with the M1KVT mate, you don’t know how to use some of hte best vehicles in their respective BRs.
Also mysterious that somehow, the tanks you claim are inferior are actually the ones you do the best with lol, the Leopards are Br for BR some of the best tnaks in the game, with the 10.7 2A4 being literally the best 10.7 in the game. The thing can roll easily with 11.3s with it’s current set up and smash them.
Even before hand with the 7.1 second reload it was a good tank for giving access to thermals, Okay optics as well as pretty nice mobility, compared to the T72s you would be saddled with otherwise.
because it’s a better tank than the T72B and B 1989, it blows the T72AV out the water bar in thermal imager quality as well as.
Especially now it has the 6 second reload it’s a menace if usedright.
I knwo it does, I use an F16A for CAS and A 15C standard for CAP if the 15C is good for cap then the E and C GE are better.
Granted the M1A2 is genuinely up there top 3 I’d say, we also have to remember for some odd reason the M1A2 standard sits at 12.0 xD rather than a respectable 12.3 where it should be.
2 Likes
Oh yeah I agree that the Abrams is definitely top 3. However I don’t fully agree with Morvran’s claim that the gap between the Abrams and 2A7/122 is smaller than the gap between the Type 10/Leclerc/Merkava Mk.4 and Abrams.
Ideally we would get at least 13.3 for the 2A7/122s alone (pending more counterparts), than we get 13.0 where some of the stronger 12.7s can move to like the SEPv1/SEPv2 etc, the M1A2 could then move to 12.7 as is, the M1A1 HCs lose M829A2 for M829A1 and move to 12.3, M1A1 moves to 12.0 and the IPM1 moves to 11.7.
They could use one of the M1E1 prototypes to fill the 11.0-11.3 hole. It’s pretty much a base M1 hull+turret but wirh the 120mm, which they could give M829 for balance. Either 11.0 with a 6 second reload or 11.3 with a 5 second reload.
1 Like
The most reasonable response I’ve seen in a good while that mate. The BR’s of the abrams are just so compact for no reason, like the M1A1 HC having M829A2 I get is historical but they use ammo to balance (hence why SHIR2 didn’t get L23A1, then went to that bracket anyway).
Agreed, I’d genuinely like to see more older variations of these MBTs, to fill gaps, they’ve forced themselves into a corner with the BRs’ we have and the damn moderness of said vehicles, to the point we’re literally having , as an example, the challanger 3 TD in the game, a tech demo for a tank which hadn’t at that point even been accepted into service.
Oh a wee caveat for @Mach_3_Hamster , I’m an averagely skilled player overall, with monthly stats showing a 1.36KD and a 58 percent winrate.
the T80BVM is one of my worst performing top tier MBTs shown on statshark. Not great but gives a great idea.
1 Like
I retested everything, here is the updated chart. All done on cargo port’s highway.
2 Likes