Probably because they lack commander sight and have gen 1 thermals whereas in leo commander sight are present with gen 2 thermals or DM-53 has a bit more pen than M829A2. Besides these two reasons i could not find any other reason for leo 2a5 not to be at 12.0
Its the best 12.0 in the game, if anything all M1s need to go up by 0.7, especially the KVT
That’s a bit high. I’d say 12.3, make it a Leopard 2A5 Equivalent.
When it’s an equivalent to the 2a6?
And it’s NOT Equivalent to the 2A7 (Same br as 2a6 for some reason)?
Nor is half the tanks at 12.7 and yet they are still 12.7
Clickbait should either be a higher BR or loose A2 shells
It’s one of the best 12.0s.
If it’s moved to 12.7, it’d be one of the worst (Strv 122s, Leopard 2A7, T-80BVM)
Why not move it to 12.3? It’d still be a nerf, but you wouldn’t be butchering the tank to face Top Tier tanks every game.
in reality, 12.3 vs 12.7 doesn’t matter that much, since it’ll most always be top tier. But down tiers do happen, if seldomly.
What we really need, as usual, is decompression.
1 Like
Is that even a thing?
better armor, smaller weakzones, better ammunition, more thermals. Obviously M1A1 HC isnt the competitor to 2a5 let alone 2a6
M1A1 HC is probably a bit better than the 2A5.
- Armour isn’t better at all.
- Weakzones aren’t smaller at all.
- M1A1 has better ammunition.
- Thermal sights are equal.
Additionally, the M1A1 HC has:
- Faster rate of fire(!).
- Marginally better gun depression.
- ESS.
- 50 cal machine guns.
- Less limited gun arcs.
- Faster reverse speed.
- Marginally faster acceleration.
- No exposed hull ammunition stowage.
2 Likes
Necrons loves to praise US tanks more than they deserve but he also forgot to mention that:
M1A1 Lacks:
-Spall Liner on turret
-CITV
-Has less penetration power.
2A5 and HC more or less equal in terms of practice.
HC has marginally better penetration than 2A5.
All of this is false except the last part.
2A5 has CITV with 2nd gen thermals.
It obviously is as 2A5 only has CITV and turret spall liners going for it, while HC has other advantages mitigating that.
Because it underperforms.
It should be higher.
I don’t know if something underperforms or not, I’m just reading stats in the game and it seems like M829A2 and DM53 L/44 are basically identical in performance.
Sure don’t forget to mention that HC also has weaker turret armor than 2A5.
Like I said they are equal more or less.
If this is to be trusted, I doubt it’s turret armor is any better/worse.
Not from straight angle.
Necrons loves to use that one because he knows it doesnt represent the whole truth.
As soon as M1’s turret changes its angle little it becomes more exposed to high penetration shells.
DM53 can actually penetrate gunner side cheek relatively easy in that position while Leopards turret stays unpenetrable.
2 Likes
No way it is. How?
Cheeks are better either way, angled and not. Mask is smalleer, even a hitbox on your screenshot is. Hull roof is at better angle, so make you a little more higher screenshot it would be penned easilly at M1 but not at Leo.
LFP is, in fact, smaller. Turret ring is a pixel wide while M1 has it size of a barn. Mask… debatable
I do believe DM53s better than 829A2, but we can agree they`re basically equal
No, the M1 has no commander thermals.
Fair enough
I dont know what that is
Fair enough, but not to make it better than 2a5
not that it makes a difference when its 30 against 35, not 4 against 40
Leopard also doesnt have one if carries 16 shots. Carrying more than 20 shots is also lethal with M1
Fair enough.
I still think HC is more than a fair contemporary of 2A5, so they should be at the same BR at the very least.