wow, you impressed me
Im not the one making unfounded claim.
It still needs its ammo buff from 272mm to 372 or 450mm
It does not.
The M1 Abrams is superior in nearly all aspects, providing the M1 with M833 would practically remove one of the few remaining advantages the Leopard 2A4 holds over the M1.
Also, reload rate is more important than penetration.
The Leopard 2A4 has a 20% slower reload for only a 11% increase in penetration. That’s why the M1 already has better firepower than the 2A4, even without M833.
Besides, if you want an M1 with better penetration, why don’t you just play the IPM1?
3 Likes
Abrams has worse survivability than the Leopard 2A4 – just that the difference doesn’t really matter against shells with penetration above that of ~105mm DM63 (which most tanks at 10.7+ have, and quite a few tanks in a full downtier too).
To an extent.
The penetration difference between 120mm DM23 and 105mm M774 is noticeable but still relatively small compared to the difference in reload (6s compared to 5s).
So like you said, the Abrams generally has better firepower than the 2A4.
Type 90’s 480mm pen with 4s reload is nice for flanks and shooting multiple tanks, but M1A1’s M829A1’s 600mm pen with 5s reload is arguably better due to how potent the round is.
Safest ammunition stowage? M1 Abrams.
Safest crew layout? M1 Abrams.
Externally counted fuel tanks that absorb APFSDS? M1 Abrams.
Frontal armour? M1 Abrams.
How did you reach the conclusion that the 2A4 has superior survivability?
1 Like
Arguable.
Shooting right cheek of Leopard 2A4 with lol-pen rounds like 120mm DM33, L26, 3BM42, etc, only takes out the gunner and commander, whereas shooting the right cheek of the M1 Abrams with such rounds can result in ammo detonation.
The left cheek of both tanks (if lol-penned) would result in ammo detonation too – though the Abrams can carry 22 rounds in the left-hand side whereas the Leopard can only carry 16 ( though that can be enough). However, the Leopard’s ammo rack can be clipped through it’s top right portion of its breech by lower-penning rounds too to be fair.
Also arguable.
The Leopard suffers from having 3 crew members in a row, but the Abrams has its crew exposed for maximum spalling (turret ring maximum residual penetration) and autocannon fire. Not to mention it allows said autocannons and main guns to cripple the breech, turret ring, and engine fairly easily.
If you’re talking about the front fuel tanks, the ~10mm / 15mm extra armour behind them regenerates the spall.
The Abrams has better strong spots but much weaker weakpoints ( don’t forget about the 68mm turret ring).
The armour of the 2A4 is generally more well-rounded.
If the M1 Abrams is so much better, can you explain why a lot of skilled players in squadron battles still prefer using the 2A4 over the M1 Abrams?
?
The only major difference is that the Leopard 2 is running around with ammunition in it’s hull rack.
Not sure what that even means.
The Abrams doesn’t spall any more or less than the Leopard 2A4 does when penetrated.
I’ve also got 3000+ kills in my M1’s combined, and the number of times I’ve been killed by autocannons frontally can be counted on two hands.
Meanwhile, the number of deaths via APFSDS fired from another MBT make up the vast majority of deaths anyone will have at top-tier.
The M1 is more survivable against the far more common threat types.
It doesn’t matter if they generate spall, there’d be the same amount of spall if they weren’t there.
What matters is that it makes the majority of the hull immune to DM23, even at point blank range because they add another 33-37mm of KE protection.
That means the LFP of an Abrams has nearly double(!) the armour that the Leo 2A4 gets.
1 Like
No, no it would not.
No, no it would not.
What does 2A4 have over 10.7 Abrams beside pen?
It has armor and pen. Even if it was worse in every category, it is VERY close in performance to a m833 firing M1. M833 isnt even as good as 105mm DM33 (barely) which is found at 9.3 on pretty much most 105mm tanks.
Had same opinion till I played the 10.7 Abrams properly in the past two weeks. Abrams UFP offers much better hull protection than leo 2 hull bar those equipped with MEXAS + beak.
For turret, I havent noticed any practical difference in effectivness.
You just bounce darts into the turret neck.
Here is a practical example as to why the Leo2a4 has more armor than the M1 Abrams:
BMP-2M firing APFSDS
If they move the reload to 6 seconds and even then I could see it going up if it still does as well as it does currently.
Acceleration? M1 Abrams.
Top speed? M1 Abrams.
Neutral steering? M1 Abrams.
Pivot steering? M1 Abrams.
Reverse speed? M1 Abrams.
Upper hull armour? M1 Abrams.
Lower hull armour? M1 Abrams.
Mantlet armour (size)? M1 Abrams.
Turret cheek armour? Tied.
Reload rate? M1 Abrams.
Penetration? Leopard 2A4
Muzzle velocity? Leopard 2A4
Secondary armament? M1 Abrams.
Optics? Tied.
Turret traverse? Tied.
Gun depression? M1 Abrams.
Safety of ammo stowage? M1 Abrams.
Crew layout? M1 Abrams.
Even the most powerful APFSDS in the entire game at point blank range won’t reliably do that.
2 Likes
Thats not always true, its RNG mechanic and as all RNG mechanics its unreliable.
Sure, Abrams turret ring is a know weakspot, that is a valid point - however it doesnt change the fact that abrams UFP is better than that of Leopard 2.
1 Like
They are very similar tanks. You are giving the abrams props for being 5% better in some categories while its armor is certainly not as strong. The turret neck makes it far more vulnerable to the very common autocannons you will see. In all reality the tanks are very close in performance in all ways except the abrams is using a dart from 9.3 to fight 11.7 tanks.
1 Like
An interesting conversation started, they’re coming back, OK, I agree with that, Abrams has better protection, I played Leopard and remembered what it’s like
The turret ring weakspot also happens to also be the location that darts will drop if you aim at the barrel and don’t adjust for drop.
I mean, so? I’d rather have vehicles be as accurate as possible and put into BR’s based around their performance.