I wanna know how many rounds that dude needed to play in order to get those.
Edit: And of course he’s going to say it’s all on the player, but that video is literally 8 months old.
Here, corrected it for you.
6 Likes
Yep. 1 change.
I mean… yeah, back then it was underperforming, I am using corrected/updated values because it gets the point across and using an old, outdated value on a present day chart would be confusing to most, specially those who may not remember or have even experienced that xD
Back then it had been the correct value for the M1(105), but after Gaijin buffed all other M1s to ~370mm KE in 2019 or so, they also buffed the very first M1 to an ahistorical value.
edit: actually ima do more edits to that graphic of yours…
Then do it wholesale, Furina.
You are missing the point entirely…
Are you going to edit in every armor change/fix/update that has taken place across the years for every tank? Are you going to include every shell they faced and face and every change these shells have gone through as well…?
All of that is besides the point and I don’t even know where you are trying to get at…
Sorry, since when have I started to discuss your point in the earnest? Must’ve missed my missing of your point considering it has never been my goal to discuss the horse that has been beaten to death already.
Are you going to edit in every armor change/fix/update that has taken place across the years for every tank? Are you going to include every shell they faced and face and every change these shells have gone through as well…?
Irrelevant.
Anyways, I’ve included more changes. Such as, 2A5s armour buff (slight), when T-80U’s armour had been buffed to today’s level (it had much lower values in the past).
My 2021 Russian tank is T-90A, which has always had the same armor.
Yeaar no. It’s also been buffed shortly after DM53 made a landfall.
So basically you’re tossing out the idea that the armor values are not up to snuff?
I’m correcting his mistakes (either deliberate or not) & adding more context because not that many people remember, that Russian tanks did not use to have as strong of an armour as they do today.
All the lands lived together in harmony, until the DM53 nation attacked.
Something something I’ve never seen TLA.
Anyway… I will never get what everyone seemingly got against U.S and the notion of them getting fixes or improvements of any kind.
As I mentioned on another thread:
Me: Hey, I think Challenger 2s should get their LFP spall liners, mantlet fixed, 3 (TD) should get its missing 17 hp, DM63 and a 5 second reload, and, generally, anything that would improve its performance and drive it closer to reality.
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think all top Chinese MBTs should receive their spall liners and have their mantlet models corrected and, generally, anything that would improve its performance and drive it closer to reality.
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7HU should get their armor fixed. I know it’s more than enough now, but it doesn’t make sense than it’s worse than Strv 122’s historically and should be changed.
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think Leclerc should have the “fuel exploded” issues corrected, UFP improved, fuel tank bulkheads implemented and have the hyperbar simulated.
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think Type 10 should have its armor holes removed and the CVT simulated.
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!Me: Hey, I think Arietes should get their spall liners and armor fixes!
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think Merkava Mk.4 should have its armor drastically improved!
Everyone: Hell yeah sister, let’s go for it!
Me: Hey, I think the Abrams should get-
Everyone: Abrams is actually amazing, skill issue, no changes needed in any way, go away
It’s always fine when I or anyone else suggest any changes or improvements for anything; even when we suggest changing Leopard 2A7s’ 670mm KE to 750mm KE there is overwhelming support.
But dare say anything about the Abrams… and everyone suddenly opposes it.
2 Likes
You don’t face DM33 and 3BM-42 at 11.7, you face DM53, 3BM-60 and M829A2.
America also has the M1 CATTB (120 and 140mm variants if we need diversity) and M1 Thumper.
I also don’t like speculating on what might some day be, because that’s not up to us nor can we predict it.
Challenger 2’s UFP gets roflpenned by DM53 beyond 2000 metres distance,
M829A2 beyond 2000 metres distance.
3BM-60 beyond 2000 metres distance.
As for the Type 10:
And that’s among his lowest K/D ratios of any of the top-tier MBT’s he plays.
Leopard 2A6 (Swed) - 5.2
M1A2 SEP - 4.8
M1A2 - 4.7
122B PLSS - 4.7
T-80BVM - 4.1
Leopard 2A6 - 4.4
Leclerc SXXI - 4.2
Ariete - 4.1
Type 10 - 4.0
Ariete PSO - 3.9
His point stands.
3 Likes
Lolk, this is just a strawman. People aren’t deliberatly going out of their way to chickenblock “M1s fixes”, they’re going after the people saying M1s the worst tank in the game & needs to be massively (and often times artificially) overbuffed in order to compete.
For example, yesterday I witnessed people on this forum demanding for M1s turret ring (???) to shatter APFSDS. Do you understand now why some/most simply do not take US players seriously?
By comparison, the “demands” made for Gaijin in regards to the Leopard 2A7 (your example) are pretty damn well sourced and generally, even without overwhelming support will end up being implemented due to the sheer amount of information presented. We appreciate your support, but this is not the same type of situation that M1 has found itself in. They’re not comparable, to put it simply.
5 Likes
Because the design allows for shattering of small-caliber rounds, below 76mm.
So are the Abrams, you just prefer to argue based on the 2A7’s basis since there’s more brochures to open source.
How, if I may ask? APFSDS even when they’re fired from a 30mm still behave the same way as the ones fired from the 120mm.
So are the Abrams, you just prefer to argue based on the 2A7’s basis since there’s more brochures to open source.
I’ve been following the M1 threads ever since the SEPv2 was added, and I’ve yet to see anything as conclusive of any of the sources that were collected for the 2A7.
Then again, it was not me who brough the 2A7 up, I only commencted on it, so I’m truly sorry for using somebody elses example to explain how these two MBTs and their circumstances aren’t even remotely comparable.
You’re one of those who has been arguing against it being conclusive.
Because nothing about it is conclusive?
The frontal armour has been upgraded
Is not conclusive in the context of the fixes that the players are trying to ‘implement’, it doesn’t tell us anything about where & how the armour has been upgraded. Rightso, I’m taking it you haven’t anything more to add in that case? Cause I was expecting to see something more than just “nu uh”.
Then there it is, you’re just acting as nuh uh, and not applying sense. Good day to you.