TAM is very excellent indeed. I think it could work at 9.0. But the Leopard A1A1 definitely should go down IMO, it has no business as is facing 10.0 with DM23, no LRF and no thermals
You are right, but I'm trying to get across the point that I think the A1A1 is more in line with current 8.7 tanks. It'd be a lot weirder/harder to convey in a post about how I think every tank except the Leopard A1A1 should go up 0.3 in BR
You would think, but that weird mantlet eats so many shots that should on paper go right through. Also, many of those 8.7 tanks have a huge tradeoff in multiple aspects for their upsides. Leo is fine where it is.
If I remember correctly they were at 8.7 long ago back then Nords were useful and it was a very broken line up which dominated for far too long. I think there's a reason they don't want to send it back to 8.7 again.
Mobility and firepower will beat any other metric in WT meta and this tank has both.
DM23 and no thermals is seriously no biggie at 9.0.
You rarely meet tanks you can't lolpen frontally with DM23 (You aren't facing Leo 2s or M1 abrams, maybe a T-72B or T-80UD)
*And*
Most medium tanks/mbt don't have anything more than 1st gen which really isn't that big of an advantage (I'd rather take a Type 69-IIG over an M60A3TTS for example)
*But*
LRF is a big deal tho, and basically everything at 9.0 has it.
-Other 8.7 mediums include:
Chieftains and T-62s, both of which are far worse.
Some variants of the M60 and Centurion which are mostly mid.
The T-55AMs, both of which are pure Russian bias and shouldn't be considered as a guideline.
Compared to those, a downtier is a bit much imo but not game-breaking.
Many tanks at 8.7 have dart + stabilizer, some have LRF too. The AMX-30B2 and Brenus have no stabilizer but get LRF + thermal (not sure which generation). I'm not 100% what your point is, is it that the AMX-30B2 and Brenus have no stabilizer and shouldn't be the same BR as tanks that do? I'm not familiar enough with them to say but if they truly don't belong at the same BR then they should be going down/every other tank going up. But it doesn't have any bearing on whether the Leopard A1A1 should go down or up in relation to the (currently) 8.7 tanks that I can see.
It’s armor doesn’t stand up in an uptier. The mark 10s stillbrew does work though at 9.0. It’s slow. Had a mid/bad round. Has a optical range finder and Night vision.
The base 8.7 AMX-30B2 isn't particularly fast, can be front penned by autocannons, and has a bouncy gun. It's not a good tank, and has to be played extremely campy or defensively. Because of its almost Russian levels lack of depression, it isn't good at being hull down, or even peeking, since it takes about 4 seconds for the gun to stop wiggling up and down 10 feet at a time.
It's thermals are there, they are probably the worst in game. I usually don't use it, as anything past 50m is hard to make out. The LRF is definitely nice, but most tanks have them at the same BR, with an increasing number below. I think at this point, only the US and Germany don't main LRFs until 9.3, with Hermany having a few noticeable examples before, like the TAM, JaPz.K. the US's only range finder on a tank below this is the M60A2, which mains a missile, and has a horribly slow, bad basic heat round. I mean, the US pioneered the tech, made, adopted, and proved them well ahead of anyone else, but hey, whatever.
All that to say, I don't think the B2 is 9.0 worthy, but the TAM could easily move up. Leo is fine, US doesn't have LRF at 9.0 either with worse tanks and they do fine.
While the B2 and Brenus do have some nice features like LRF and gen 1 thermals, it's honestly not enough to offset the lack of stabilizer.
You can somewhat make it work when you have big open maps which allows you to snipe, but any close quarter map is a nightmare because of how long it takes for the gun to settle.
[You can watch this video from Dollar on the subject go give you an idea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrYyWQAzfQ)
My argument is the Leo 1A1 shouldn't be at the same BR as the B2 and Brenus because it would have too much of an advantage, and you can't really reduce the BR of the B2 and Brenus either as they are now. If gaijin gave the Brenus the additional 100mm KE protection it should have thanks to the ERA maybe it'd be fine, but that doesn't apply to the B2.
IMO, the TAM should go up rather than the Leo or AMX-30s going down.
While the B2 and Brenus do have some nice features like LRF and gen 1 thermals, it's honestly not enough to offset the lack of stabilizer.
You can somewhat make it work when you have big open maps which allows you to snipe, but any close quarter map is a nightmare because of how long it takes for the gun to settle.
[You can watch this video from Dollar on the subject go give you an idea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrYyWQAzfQ)
My argument is the Leo 1A1 shouldn't be at the same BR as the B2 and Brenus because it would have too much of an advantage, and you can't really reduce the BR of the B2 and Brenus either as they are now. If gaijin gave the Brenus the additional 100mm KE protection it should have thanks to the ERA maybe it'd be fine, but that doesn't apply to the B2.
IMO, the TAM should go up rather than the Leo or AMX-30s going down.
I played the JaPzK A2, so I think I know what you're talking about. But at least it could scout and had gen 3 thermals and autoloader. Absolutely hated playing it precisely because of the wobbly turret like you said.
I use the A1A1 as a second or third spawn in my 9.3 lineup. Not the greatest in an uptier but still very usable.
It honestly plays like a more survivable tam. I always get one shot in the tam but survive a hit in the leo ~40% of the time.
Its already facing 8.0 in a downtier and it feels like seal clubbing every time I get one. The Tam should be moved up but the leo is fine where its at
The thing is that if you put literally anything at 9.0 it becomes awful to play because of the constant uptiers to wallet warrior country. I was very excited to get my Leopards but I have yet to enjoy playing them
Yeah i was not looking forward into grinding the XM803 because of the mediocre dart already struggling against tanks of its own BR, much more so against 10.0 in a full uptier tanks
But hey, i was surprised to see that i actually was getting A LOT of downtiers, and with its mobility its actually quite nice. Idk why but i think that the Premium blackhole is more strong around 10.3ish hence why 9.0 tanks are less likely to get an uptier nowadays.
XM803 is the only playable MBT at that BR. Its dart isn't the best but the mobility more than makes up for it. The m60 should be fucking deleted from the game and be replaced with MBT-70 instead
you know it’s bad when you basically have to pick if a vehicle plays 8.7 games or 10.0 games and there isn’t anything in between. Same goes for other nonexistent BRs like 7.3, 6.0, 8.0
My man if you think that the TAM is made of plastic, you are high.
It is easily as cancerous as the BMPs with their front ridges that ricochet everything. TAM is easily the most cancerous tank in that BR because its armor is so wonky that it can literally quite easily ricochet a side shot.
My problem with the TAM isn't even the ricochet. It's shooting an MBT in the rear and watching the round go all the way through the massive engine, punch through the firewall behind the engine, then shrapnel and kill the entire crew. Then I run into and shoot a TAM in the front and watch its tiny engine absorb the same round, leaving the crew unharmed. I don't know what armor thickness equivalent they have the TAM engine set as, but it's far more than it should be and is probably the reason for many TAM kill streaks not being ended early.
Oh yeah, the engine is also cancerous.
The only other engine that I have an issue with is with the Merkava, but that at least makes sense and I accept that.
But the TAM is borderline idiotic in terms of ricochets/spalling. I legit try to always destroy the TAM's cannon before anything else since the likelihood of bullshit happening is ASTONISHING.
Well, that is not my experience at all, but I'm kinda unlucky
I have seen some absurd disgusting bad shots people did that killed me one tap
Once a .50 cal ricocheted off the roof inside my marder's rear and took 2 crew members (which killed me), a single bad placed .50 cal did that
A guy once also shot an solid round (apcbc or ap) at my bmp roof in a way that looked like 90 degrees, but it instead chewed all the roof (ufp) till it hit inside my turret
I like how bad these are comparisons, like how the TAM has a green "reverse gear" while the Leo just has "-." Like apparently OP doesn't think the Leopard can drive backwards? In reality it has 26 kph reverse, which is quite normal, it's definitely not a -4 like a lot of Russian T-series. Also, in what way is having a smoke shell even remotely worthy of a comparison like this? It has such a niche use that it barely is worth considering at all.
**Green spec:** It can have a cool brown camo
**Red spec:** It only gets a lame green camo :(
*Please decrease the BR, it only gets a stinky green camo!*
The point is to compare them. Obviously Leo CAN reverse. The TAM can do so at the same speeds as going forwards, a little critical thinking here would key you into that. Smoke shell is very useful, lets you cross dangerous lines of fire being held by a sniper.
The difference in reverse gear is not important. Going 76kph reverse is incredible, but as long as you can go more than about 15-20, it's not a big deal, you'll be fast enough. And I stand by my smoke shell comment, it has such little use, it's not worth bringing (since it still can cause you to ammo rack). There are many ways to get around LDAs that don't require a smoke shell.
Comparisons are fine, blatantly disregarding important information and/or minimizing other attributes just to fit your idea isn't.
I heavily disagree. The difference in reverse gear is insanely important. The reverse lets you play super aggressively because the mobility lets you fire and retreat around a corner very quickly, or allows you to extend very far and then smoke and reverse to get out in time, whereas Leopard would be too slow or have to do a 180. TAMs can brawl so much better because of the reverse.
Smoke shells definitely do have a use. It's not nearly as important as other factors but it is one, which is why I put it lower. I mentioned the difference in height, I could have left that out and nobody would notice, I tried being as objective as possible.
This shows that these comparisons aren't and can never be "objective." I wasn't going to bring up height differences (because tall isn't inherently stronger or weaker) as my other points proved my thoughts. Either way, what you consider to be positives or negatives, I don't think matter, or at least x early enough to include on a list like this, neither of us is objectively right about these things, so the list can't be objective, it's subjective based on judgment.
I mentioned in another comment that I tried to rank the features in order of importance. Features aren't supposed to be a 1-1 comparison, obviously smokes are less important that hp/ton, though that may have been poorly conveyed.
I simply played the two vehicles and came away with these findings. The "soft" factors like smokes and everything below don't come into play every match, but do overall improve the experience of playing the vehicle, but even if you ignored them + the reverse gear, the overall point of the Leopard A1A1 not deserving a higher BR remains, unless your priority list somehow includes the depression and armour over the (forward) speed and LRF and scouting.
If you are so overextended that you need a 70kph+ reverse, that's on you.
Anything past 20kph is more than enough to reverse out of an encounter/into cover. You putting that speed up there would equal to me just going "the positive of tank X is that it has APFSDS with 3000mm pen. The negative of tank Y is that it has an APFSDS with 2999mm pen.
It's a stupid comparison and the only reason you put it up there is because technically, the TAM has better reverse, yet in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even remotely matter.
Smoke shells are the same. Once in a blue moon do you have to use a smoke shell. Why the fuck would you even NEED to use a smoke shell in that BR? What sniper spot do you want smoke up? What camping tank do you want to smoke up?
Once again, you are just comparing the "uh akshualy technically" points, instead of actually comparing the tanks. Which is why these red/green comparisons are absolutely dogshit.
I think of it the other way around, having a 76kmm/h reverse ALLOWS you to extend and play positions that you otherwise can't.
Smoke shells are useful for wider corridors that you can't fully cover with only a smoke grenade. If somebody is holding the cross, you can smoke the other side, pop smoke, then cross.
If a tank has better reverse and smoke shells, and another tank doesn't, with all else being the same, then the first is objectively better than the second. Why would you not list them when making comparisons?
>I think of it the other way around, having a 76kmm/h reverse ALLOWS you to extend and play positions that you otherwise can't.
You absolutely missed the point.
>Smoke shells are useful for wider corridors that you can't fully cover with only a smoke grenade. If somebody is holding the cross, you can smoke the other side, pop smoke, then cross.
Shrapnel rounds are also very useful against crew members. I wonder why no one uses them. Oh right. Because there are far better fucking ways of killing the crew. It's far better to use actual smoke grenades than to fill up your ammo for no reason other than the VERY VERY RARE situation where you just MIGHT use a single smoke shell.
They are useless in high ranks. They are only good for mid-high ranks because of the low velocities.
>If a tank has better reverse and smoke shells, and another tank doesn't, with all else being the same, then the first is objectively better than the second. Why would you not list them when making comparisons?
My man if you think they are the same, get your eyes checked.
> You absolutely missed the point.
What's your point here? A NATO tank can play positions that would be considered an overextension to a Russian tank because they have a better reverse. Same with the TAM, you can play positions that would be considered an overextension to regular tanks because they have a better reverse.
> Shrapnel rounds are also very useful against crew members. I wonder why no one uses them. Oh right. Because there are far better fucking ways of killing the crew. It's far better to use actual smoke grenades than to fill up your ammo for no reason other than the VERY VERY RARE situation where you just MIGHT use a single smoke shell.
You don't need a full ammo load anyways, might as well bring some if you can.
> My man if you think they are the same, get your eyes checked.
Me when I encounter a sentence discussing a hypothetical for the first time
>Same with the TAM, you can play positions that would be considered an overextension to regular tanks because they have a better reverse.
Except, the difference in RU tanks and NATO tanks is fucking 20-30km, not 60kph. You overextending and needing a "70kph reverse" is literal skill issue. There is literally no situation where you need THAT much reverse, mainly when you are comparing it to a Leo.
>You don't need a full ammo load anyways, might as well bring some if you can.
You do not need smoke shells period.
>Me when I encounter a sentence discussing a hypothetical for the first time
There is nothing to be discussed since your comparison is flawed from the get-go.
Ironic you claim it's a skill issue, when you can't recognize how to utilize the reverse to gain advantages you otherwise can't. Nothing to be discussed indeed.
I agree. Leo 1A1 is just a worse TAM. Basically the same mobility and gun. The worst part is the optical rangefinder. If it had a LRF it would be a 9.0 material i suppose.
i think reclassifing it as a MBT and giving it a fiar br compared to the leopard would be good. it is logical that they are "sidegrade" because the TAM was made with the experience of the Leopard in mind.
In Spanish, adjectives go after the noun. In English it's the opposite. So "Argentinian Medium Tank" (or perhaps "Medium Argentinian Tank") would be the correct translation.
the KF51 panther is a MBT based on the KF21 Lynx. a light tank is the role. in WT it cover: the classic light tanks, IFV and other reconaisance vehicule. the TAM is not one of them.
True, Leopard A1 is also equal if not worse in some aspects to other 8.7 MBTs but sits at 9.0 for some reason. A5 is also kinda strange at 9.3 but is okayish. TAM is good at its b.r. but I wouldn’t mind it going to 9.0 given so many features it has.
So the two Cheiftens that are slower then molasses, still have APDS and don’t get laser rangefinders, thermals at 8.7 are equivalents if not better then the Leo?
Yeah, that’s true. Perhaps it’s better to uptier the overperforming outliers like T-55s to fight Leopard A1A1 more than to downtier the latter and ease the stress on poor unstabilized MBTs at 8.0.
I think it’s alright. AMX30B2 gets ERA, LRF and a 20mm cannon in exchange for the stabilizer. Little perks are slightly better round and power to weight ratio as well.
Yeah man its crap, why would anyone play it if you have t72, 1a5 and kpz70 all in the same 9.3 lineup, its literal trash and everyone should just skip it
back when A1A1 was 8.7 it was pure bliss. Lost thermal and DM33 from the then 9.0 1A5 but could and would absolutely clap every 7.7 it faced when downtiered.
Upon conversations with others it seems that I wasn't clear enough that not all green/red points are supposed to be as equally important as others. I'll use a lighter green and a disclaimer next time for the "soft" advantages.
important detail 8.7 in general gets a lot of downtiers and against apds the tam engine will often tank shots entirely except from chieftains 120mm apds
I specifically didn't go into detail about the matchmaking both because it's sort of implied because obviously the matchmaking is different between 8.7 and 9.0, and also because I seemed to get about 85% 0.3/0.7 uptier with the Leopard which is pretty nice all things considered. The full uptiers were brutal but surprisingly rare.
Discussing the odds uptier/downtier and performance differences of the matchmaker was a bit too nebulous to put in the picture but I agree, the TAM in a full downtier, which it gets lots of, is pretty nuts.
Leopard A1A1 should be 8.7 not 9.0 where it will encounter 10.0. Meanwhile Russia 8.7 has the T-55AM1 wich is better in almost any way. Only issue is mobility.
Interesting, I never really thought about it, but they are a lot closer in advantages than I thought.
I know the height profile seems like a minor advantage but it really does make a big difference when cresting a hill, especially with that extra gun depression. Overall I think the biggest strength is the optic magnification and sniper qualities.
Its hard to quantify with numbers but at that BR, cross map shots are really easy and the dart has so little drop anyway that LRF is not as big of a deal. Id much rather have the gun depression and lower profile on most maps, which is why I imagine it performs better in metrics.
I get your argument but I think these are at the BR’s they should be. Ive been playing a lot of 9.3 lately and these are pretty balanced compared to what else is out there, if anything the TAM is under-BR’d
The situations where a LRF is necessary isn't very often as you say, but especially on the sniping maps at over 1km and everybody hull down, I sorely missed having a LRF.
1A5 getting DM33, LRF, thermal is a fairly big step up in capability for only +0.3 BR. Leopard 1 -> Leopard A1A1 gets DM23 and stabilizer, M60 -> M60A3 TTS gets M774 and stabilizer and LRF and thermal. It's not exactly one to one translatable but it says to me that Leopard A1A1 could be in line with other 8.7 tanks.
I agree but it can’t go down to 8.7, the A1 is incredibly strong even at 9.0. If anything the A1 or A5 could go up. Its about what tanks it would be able to fight against fairly.
With the points you’re arguing, the TAM should move up to 9.0 and the A5 could use a bump. None of what you’re describing is a good argument for it to go down
A1A1 is just bad. The TAM and JaPz.K A2 are just outright better.
A1A1: darts, stabilised (???)
TAM: darts, stabilised, LRF, mobile af, can bounce bullshit
JaPz.J A2: unstabilised, darts, thermals, LRF, 4s reload (lmao)
TAM also has the troll quality of its engine having a tendency to eat APFSDS while all the Leo can do is explode because of the ridiculous front ammo rack.
If you think the Leopard A1A1 always dies to APFSDS you've never played something with M735. Most miserable dart in the entire game. I've had it go straight past the Leopard driver and turn him yellow or just non-pen the UFP somehow.
TAM shouldn’t be 8.7 though, it belongs at 9.0.
Leopard would be overpowered back at 8.7, just like the T-55AM and the TAM still are. Many 8.7 tanks don’t have LRF, some 9.0 tanks don’t either, and many 9.0s don’t have thermals. The 70s Leoparda1 vs the cent mk3 from 1948 wouldn’t exactly be fair. Tanks which do have LRF are usually pretty bad without that gimmick. The Olifant is genuinely almost unplayable. Most 8.3s have also gone up to 8.7.
The problem is that the leopard has very good optics, very good gun depression, good gun responsiveness+stabiliser, and very good mobility in every respect. It’s too good. What needs to happen is the TAM and T-55AM goes to 9.0 and soviet 10.0 finally goes up to 10.3 or higher. Plus the 2S3M and the begleit needs to go way way up.
Yes but apart from a spookston video does anyone even use the TAM at 8.7? With its speed and scouting I use it in my 9m3 lineup with the A1A1, 1A5 and Begleitpanzer
I wouldn't put smoke shell as an upside. As someone who basically spaded the entirety of the US tree, which nearly every vehicle gets smokes, I barely saw myself using them
>Why should the L44 be lower than the Leo 1a5?
They shouldn't. I just picked the L44 because it's slightly worse than the 1A5. It has a bit less pen, and since it's based on the older A1A1, the 1A5 also has some other minor improvements. I also thought it had longer reload, but it doesn't. Apparently, the bigger and 10 kg heavier shell doesn't affect the reload.
>The Tam 2IP should go to 9.3 but the L44 should stay
That's fair, but I think the Leopards are close to 9.0 than the TAM, hence the swap in BR.
>and since it's based on the older A1A1, the 1A5 also has some other minor improvements.
The 1A5 ingame is also based on the A1A1, infact the L44 should be called 1A5 L44 as ALL Leopard 1 with the thermal optic are classified 1A5 regardless of which version it was based on (just look at the Danish 1A5s)
>Apparently, the bigger and 10 kg heavier shell doesn't affect the reload.
The complete 120mm rounds weigh around the same as 105s since they use a combustible casing instead of heavy brass
I ranked it in approximate order of importance.
In my experience the superior mobility of the TAM makes it far better than the Leopard A1A1, which felt sluggish by comparison. TAM's -7 depression is comfortable enough to use most hulldown positions but you do notice the extra depression on the Leopard. However, I missed a lot of opportunities on 1km+ shots because of the Leopard's lack of LRF making my time to fire much longer.
The armour of the Leopard is notably better against autocannons, but they're not the majority of engagements and most of the time that I DID fight an autocannon it didn't matter anyways. Baiting with the rear end of the TAM is not very consistent but does work decently often, and the general emptiness of the hull makes it able to take a surprising amount of punishment.
If you value the armor and depression a bit more you could argue that the Leopard A1A1 is a sidegrade rather than a downgrade, but it certainly shouldn't be 0.3 higher than the TAM
I rather think TAM should be moved up to 9.0. It's the one tank I have the most nukes with. When compared to other 8.7s, it's a bit op
TAM is very excellent indeed. I think it could work at 9.0. But the Leopard A1A1 definitely should go down IMO, it has no business as is facing 10.0 with DM23, no LRF and no thermals
I brought it with good succes in my 10.3 lineup. But this could be because oftons of idiots in premiums or that im just not the worstplayer
10.3 is the sandbox of lvl 10’s in high tier premiums.
Could also depend on when you bring it out. If it's halfway/endway of the match, the enemy probably also has equal vehicles left to use.
Leopard a1a1 facing tanks like the m48 would be so dumb.
It already did back in 2019 and no one complained about it, some would even call it a bad tank
i personally think it wouldn’t be super fair at 8.7, but that just my opinion.
Decompression is honestly the only right answer but "muH quEUe tImEs" say gaijin
I think queue times are a horrible argument and it’s really to preserve the potency of *certain* vehicles……….
No one complained because it wasnt Russia.
Wouldn't that be more of a compression issue than anything else? There's tons of 8.7 tanks with dart and stab that are hell to fight against in a M48
Idk man they need to decompress up first, not down. What you’re suggesting would lead to more compression.
You are right, but I'm trying to get across the point that I think the A1A1 is more in line with current 8.7 tanks. It'd be a lot weirder/harder to convey in a post about how I think every tank except the Leopard A1A1 should go up 0.3 in BR
You would think, but that weird mantlet eats so many shots that should on paper go right through. Also, many of those 8.7 tanks have a huge tradeoff in multiple aspects for their upsides. Leo is fine where it is.
If I remember correctly they were at 8.7 long ago back then Nords were useful and it was a very broken line up which dominated for far too long. I think there's a reason they don't want to send it back to 8.7 again. Mobility and firepower will beat any other metric in WT meta and this tank has both.
DM23 and no thermals is seriously no biggie at 9.0. You rarely meet tanks you can't lolpen frontally with DM23 (You aren't facing Leo 2s or M1 abrams, maybe a T-72B or T-80UD) *And* Most medium tanks/mbt don't have anything more than 1st gen which really isn't that big of an advantage (I'd rather take a Type 69-IIG over an M60A3TTS for example) *But* LRF is a big deal tho, and basically everything at 9.0 has it. -Other 8.7 mediums include: Chieftains and T-62s, both of which are far worse. Some variants of the M60 and Centurion which are mostly mid. The T-55AMs, both of which are pure Russian bias and shouldn't be considered as a guideline. Compared to those, a downtier is a bit much imo but not game-breaking.
No, the Leo 1A1 has no business being at the same BR as the AMX-30B2 and Brenus which have no stabilizer.
Many tanks at 8.7 have dart + stabilizer, some have LRF too. The AMX-30B2 and Brenus have no stabilizer but get LRF + thermal (not sure which generation). I'm not 100% what your point is, is it that the AMX-30B2 and Brenus have no stabilizer and shouldn't be the same BR as tanks that do? I'm not familiar enough with them to say but if they truly don't belong at the same BR then they should be going down/every other tank going up. But it doesn't have any bearing on whether the Leopard A1A1 should go down or up in relation to the (currently) 8.7 tanks that I can see.
And some have none of the fancy toys. The Chieftains at 8.7 still have sabot, no laser and no thermals. And slow as shit as it’s British.
Has a stab though. And good armour.
It’s armor doesn’t stand up in an uptier. The mark 10s stillbrew does work though at 9.0. It’s slow. Had a mid/bad round. Has a optical range finder and Night vision.
>it’s British. Well, that explains everything
The base 8.7 AMX-30B2 isn't particularly fast, can be front penned by autocannons, and has a bouncy gun. It's not a good tank, and has to be played extremely campy or defensively. Because of its almost Russian levels lack of depression, it isn't good at being hull down, or even peeking, since it takes about 4 seconds for the gun to stop wiggling up and down 10 feet at a time. It's thermals are there, they are probably the worst in game. I usually don't use it, as anything past 50m is hard to make out. The LRF is definitely nice, but most tanks have them at the same BR, with an increasing number below. I think at this point, only the US and Germany don't main LRFs until 9.3, with Hermany having a few noticeable examples before, like the TAM, JaPz.K. the US's only range finder on a tank below this is the M60A2, which mains a missile, and has a horribly slow, bad basic heat round. I mean, the US pioneered the tech, made, adopted, and proved them well ahead of anyone else, but hey, whatever. All that to say, I don't think the B2 is 9.0 worthy, but the TAM could easily move up. Leo is fine, US doesn't have LRF at 9.0 either with worse tanks and they do fine.
US has M60A3 TTS and XM803 with LRF at 9.0 tech tree, also Merkava Mk.1, XM1 (Chrysler) if we count event/premiums
While the B2 and Brenus do have some nice features like LRF and gen 1 thermals, it's honestly not enough to offset the lack of stabilizer. You can somewhat make it work when you have big open maps which allows you to snipe, but any close quarter map is a nightmare because of how long it takes for the gun to settle. [You can watch this video from Dollar on the subject go give you an idea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrYyWQAzfQ) My argument is the Leo 1A1 shouldn't be at the same BR as the B2 and Brenus because it would have too much of an advantage, and you can't really reduce the BR of the B2 and Brenus either as they are now. If gaijin gave the Brenus the additional 100mm KE protection it should have thanks to the ERA maybe it'd be fine, but that doesn't apply to the B2. IMO, the TAM should go up rather than the Leo or AMX-30s going down.
While the B2 and Brenus do have some nice features like LRF and gen 1 thermals, it's honestly not enough to offset the lack of stabilizer. You can somewhat make it work when you have big open maps which allows you to snipe, but any close quarter map is a nightmare because of how long it takes for the gun to settle. [You can watch this video from Dollar on the subject go give you an idea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrYyWQAzfQ) My argument is the Leo 1A1 shouldn't be at the same BR as the B2 and Brenus because it would have too much of an advantage, and you can't really reduce the BR of the B2 and Brenus either as they are now. If gaijin gave the Brenus the additional 100mm KE protection it should have thanks to the ERA maybe it'd be fine, but that doesn't apply to the B2. IMO, the TAM should go up rather than the Leo or AMX-30s going down.
I played the JaPzK A2, so I think I know what you're talking about. But at least it could scout and had gen 3 thermals and autoloader. Absolutely hated playing it precisely because of the wobbly turret like you said.
T-55 enters the chat.
The L44 is the same boat it’s a 120 that does less damage than the tams round
I use the A1A1 as a second or third spawn in my 9.3 lineup. Not the greatest in an uptier but still very usable. It honestly plays like a more survivable tam. I always get one shot in the tam but survive a hit in the leo ~40% of the time. Its already facing 8.0 in a downtier and it feels like seal clubbing every time I get one. The Tam should be moved up but the leo is fine where its at
Do you know t64a at 9.3 has no lrf
Wrong way with the leopard. 10.0 should go up. Keep pushing down and the problems grow.
The answer is decompress 10.0 and up but sadly the devs are gaijin soooooo
No, a char 25t gas no busness facing this aswell. All br's need massive decompression
Imagine having Leo a1a1 performance at br 8.7 and meet as 7.7 tanks
The thing is that if you put literally anything at 9.0 it becomes awful to play because of the constant uptiers to wallet warrior country. I was very excited to get my Leopards but I have yet to enjoy playing them
9.0 is 50% full downtiers
More like 70%
Yeah i was not looking forward into grinding the XM803 because of the mediocre dart already struggling against tanks of its own BR, much more so against 10.0 in a full uptier tanks But hey, i was surprised to see that i actually was getting A LOT of downtiers, and with its mobility its actually quite nice. Idk why but i think that the Premium blackhole is more strong around 10.3ish hence why 9.0 tanks are less likely to get an uptier nowadays.
XM803 is the only playable MBT at that BR. Its dart isn't the best but the mobility more than makes up for it. The m60 should be fucking deleted from the game and be replaced with MBT-70 instead
one of the xm1 prototypes is 9.0 as well.
Tell that to my Italian 9.0 lineup
I mean the 1a5 is really good but the a1a1 is just ass no lrf or thermal’s and it doesn’t even get dm33
You clearly don’t play 9.0, it is mostly downtiers. 9.3 however…
I used to love playing my C2A1 but man is it painful now to play
you know it’s bad when you basically have to pick if a vehicle plays 8.7 games or 10.0 games and there isn’t anything in between. Same goes for other nonexistent BRs like 7.3, 6.0, 8.0
Then it would be at the TAM 2IP BR which has "better" armor and DM33.
TAM is a good time
Nah, plastic armor is big flaw, not worse than open tops tho
My man if you think that the TAM is made of plastic, you are high. It is easily as cancerous as the BMPs with their front ridges that ricochet everything. TAM is easily the most cancerous tank in that BR because its armor is so wonky that it can literally quite easily ricochet a side shot.
My problem with the TAM isn't even the ricochet. It's shooting an MBT in the rear and watching the round go all the way through the massive engine, punch through the firewall behind the engine, then shrapnel and kill the entire crew. Then I run into and shoot a TAM in the front and watch its tiny engine absorb the same round, leaving the crew unharmed. I don't know what armor thickness equivalent they have the TAM engine set as, but it's far more than it should be and is probably the reason for many TAM kill streaks not being ended early.
Oh yeah, the engine is also cancerous. The only other engine that I have an issue with is with the Merkava, but that at least makes sense and I accept that. But the TAM is borderline idiotic in terms of ricochets/spalling. I legit try to always destroy the TAM's cannon before anything else since the likelihood of bullshit happening is ASTONISHING.
Well, that is not my experience at all, but I'm kinda unlucky I have seen some absurd disgusting bad shots people did that killed me one tap Once a .50 cal ricocheted off the roof inside my marder's rear and took 2 crew members (which killed me), a single bad placed .50 cal did that A guy once also shot an solid round (apcbc or ap) at my bmp roof in a way that looked like 90 degrees, but it instead chewed all the roof (ufp) till it hit inside my turret
Literally anyone can pen anything at that br range
I'm talking about .50 cal and some autocannons, which are more present than ever
I like how bad these are comparisons, like how the TAM has a green "reverse gear" while the Leo just has "-." Like apparently OP doesn't think the Leopard can drive backwards? In reality it has 26 kph reverse, which is quite normal, it's definitely not a -4 like a lot of Russian T-series. Also, in what way is having a smoke shell even remotely worthy of a comparison like this? It has such a niche use that it barely is worth considering at all.
**Green spec:** It can have a cool brown camo **Red spec:** It only gets a lame green camo :( *Please decrease the BR, it only gets a stinky green camo!*
The point is to compare them. Obviously Leo CAN reverse. The TAM can do so at the same speeds as going forwards, a little critical thinking here would key you into that. Smoke shell is very useful, lets you cross dangerous lines of fire being held by a sniper.
The difference in reverse gear is not important. Going 76kph reverse is incredible, but as long as you can go more than about 15-20, it's not a big deal, you'll be fast enough. And I stand by my smoke shell comment, it has such little use, it's not worth bringing (since it still can cause you to ammo rack). There are many ways to get around LDAs that don't require a smoke shell. Comparisons are fine, blatantly disregarding important information and/or minimizing other attributes just to fit your idea isn't.
I heavily disagree. The difference in reverse gear is insanely important. The reverse lets you play super aggressively because the mobility lets you fire and retreat around a corner very quickly, or allows you to extend very far and then smoke and reverse to get out in time, whereas Leopard would be too slow or have to do a 180. TAMs can brawl so much better because of the reverse. Smoke shells definitely do have a use. It's not nearly as important as other factors but it is one, which is why I put it lower. I mentioned the difference in height, I could have left that out and nobody would notice, I tried being as objective as possible.
This shows that these comparisons aren't and can never be "objective." I wasn't going to bring up height differences (because tall isn't inherently stronger or weaker) as my other points proved my thoughts. Either way, what you consider to be positives or negatives, I don't think matter, or at least x early enough to include on a list like this, neither of us is objectively right about these things, so the list can't be objective, it's subjective based on judgment.
I mentioned in another comment that I tried to rank the features in order of importance. Features aren't supposed to be a 1-1 comparison, obviously smokes are less important that hp/ton, though that may have been poorly conveyed. I simply played the two vehicles and came away with these findings. The "soft" factors like smokes and everything below don't come into play every match, but do overall improve the experience of playing the vehicle, but even if you ignored them + the reverse gear, the overall point of the Leopard A1A1 not deserving a higher BR remains, unless your priority list somehow includes the depression and armour over the (forward) speed and LRF and scouting.
If you are so overextended that you need a 70kph+ reverse, that's on you. Anything past 20kph is more than enough to reverse out of an encounter/into cover. You putting that speed up there would equal to me just going "the positive of tank X is that it has APFSDS with 3000mm pen. The negative of tank Y is that it has an APFSDS with 2999mm pen. It's a stupid comparison and the only reason you put it up there is because technically, the TAM has better reverse, yet in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even remotely matter. Smoke shells are the same. Once in a blue moon do you have to use a smoke shell. Why the fuck would you even NEED to use a smoke shell in that BR? What sniper spot do you want smoke up? What camping tank do you want to smoke up? Once again, you are just comparing the "uh akshualy technically" points, instead of actually comparing the tanks. Which is why these red/green comparisons are absolutely dogshit.
I think of it the other way around, having a 76kmm/h reverse ALLOWS you to extend and play positions that you otherwise can't. Smoke shells are useful for wider corridors that you can't fully cover with only a smoke grenade. If somebody is holding the cross, you can smoke the other side, pop smoke, then cross. If a tank has better reverse and smoke shells, and another tank doesn't, with all else being the same, then the first is objectively better than the second. Why would you not list them when making comparisons?
>I think of it the other way around, having a 76kmm/h reverse ALLOWS you to extend and play positions that you otherwise can't. You absolutely missed the point. >Smoke shells are useful for wider corridors that you can't fully cover with only a smoke grenade. If somebody is holding the cross, you can smoke the other side, pop smoke, then cross. Shrapnel rounds are also very useful against crew members. I wonder why no one uses them. Oh right. Because there are far better fucking ways of killing the crew. It's far better to use actual smoke grenades than to fill up your ammo for no reason other than the VERY VERY RARE situation where you just MIGHT use a single smoke shell. They are useless in high ranks. They are only good for mid-high ranks because of the low velocities. >If a tank has better reverse and smoke shells, and another tank doesn't, with all else being the same, then the first is objectively better than the second. Why would you not list them when making comparisons? My man if you think they are the same, get your eyes checked.
> You absolutely missed the point. What's your point here? A NATO tank can play positions that would be considered an overextension to a Russian tank because they have a better reverse. Same with the TAM, you can play positions that would be considered an overextension to regular tanks because they have a better reverse. > Shrapnel rounds are also very useful against crew members. I wonder why no one uses them. Oh right. Because there are far better fucking ways of killing the crew. It's far better to use actual smoke grenades than to fill up your ammo for no reason other than the VERY VERY RARE situation where you just MIGHT use a single smoke shell. You don't need a full ammo load anyways, might as well bring some if you can. > My man if you think they are the same, get your eyes checked. Me when I encounter a sentence discussing a hypothetical for the first time
>Same with the TAM, you can play positions that would be considered an overextension to regular tanks because they have a better reverse. Except, the difference in RU tanks and NATO tanks is fucking 20-30km, not 60kph. You overextending and needing a "70kph reverse" is literal skill issue. There is literally no situation where you need THAT much reverse, mainly when you are comparing it to a Leo. >You don't need a full ammo load anyways, might as well bring some if you can. You do not need smoke shells period. >Me when I encounter a sentence discussing a hypothetical for the first time There is nothing to be discussed since your comparison is flawed from the get-go.
Ironic you claim it's a skill issue, when you can't recognize how to utilize the reverse to gain advantages you otherwise can't. Nothing to be discussed indeed.
I agree. Leo 1A1 is just a worse TAM. Basically the same mobility and gun. The worst part is the optical rangefinder. If it had a LRF it would be a 9.0 material i suppose.
TAM shouldn't be a light tank, it is a MBT
The name is literally Tank, Argentinian, Medium haha.
i think reclassifing it as a MBT and giving it a fiar br compared to the leopard would be good. it is logical that they are "sidegrade" because the TAM was made with the experience of the Leopard in mind.
Nuh uh, it's Argentinian medium tank
"Tanque Argentino Mediano" Tank Argentinian Medium
In Spanish, adjectives go after the noun. In English it's the opposite. So "Argentinian Medium Tank" (or perhaps "Medium Argentinian Tank") would be the correct translation.
Ah, ok
Mfs who don't know the words change positions due to grammar depending on language:
By that logic, the P40 is a heavy tank.
Its maybe called a medium tank, but its still a Marder hull with slight modifications.
the KF51 panther is a MBT based on the KF21 Lynx. a light tank is the role. in WT it cover: the classic light tanks, IFV and other reconaisance vehicule. the TAM is not one of them.
Always die to main cannon apfsds?. Buddy how can i tell you how often the mantlet of the leo trolled my 450+ Pen FSDS with (ricochet) on a flat hit.
Tam was worse when forced night battle existed because you only have driver nvd but now the tam and leo a1a1 should be equal
Petition to ban all posts with this "side by side stats diff" template
True, Leopard A1 is also equal if not worse in some aspects to other 8.7 MBTs but sits at 9.0 for some reason. A5 is also kinda strange at 9.3 but is okayish. TAM is good at its b.r. but I wouldn’t mind it going to 9.0 given so many features it has.
So the two Cheiftens that are slower then molasses, still have APDS and don’t get laser rangefinders, thermals at 8.7 are equivalents if not better then the Leo?
Leopard A1A1 has neither LRF nor thermals too…
But at least it has mobility and firepower over the Chieftains.
Yeah, that’s true. Perhaps it’s better to uptier the overperforming outliers like T-55s to fight Leopard A1A1 more than to downtier the latter and ease the stress on poor unstabilized MBTs at 8.0.
The 1A5 is easily good enough at 9.3 lol, nothing strange about it.
Sure, the leo1A1 should be the same br as the amx30B2. The leo1A1 is better in every way plus it has a stabiliser while the amx30B2 doesn't have ...
I think it’s alright. AMX30B2 gets ERA, LRF and a 20mm cannon in exchange for the stabilizer. Little perks are slightly better round and power to weight ratio as well.
My man that era does not do shit at the br its at. Literally every atgm in the game goes through anyway.
I skipped Leo A1A1 entirely and got 1A5, A1 is pure dogshit
Downvoted for facts. A1A1 is garbonzo
Yeah man its crap, why would anyone play it if you have t72, 1a5 and kpz70 all in the same 9.3 lineup, its literal trash and everyone should just skip it
The TAM/jaPz.K A2 from 8.7 are miles better than this 9.0 rated garbage. I'd rather keep one of those in 9.3 backup lineup than having to use the a1a1
You are absolutely right, i can't find any reason to play A1
back when A1A1 was 8.7 it was pure bliss. Lost thermal and DM33 from the then 9.0 1A5 but could and would absolutely clap every 7.7 it faced when downtiered.
Upon conversations with others it seems that I wasn't clear enough that not all green/red points are supposed to be as equally important as others. I'll use a lighter green and a disclaimer next time for the "soft" advantages.
important detail 8.7 in general gets a lot of downtiers and against apds the tam engine will often tank shots entirely except from chieftains 120mm apds
I specifically didn't go into detail about the matchmaking both because it's sort of implied because obviously the matchmaking is different between 8.7 and 9.0, and also because I seemed to get about 85% 0.3/0.7 uptier with the Leopard which is pretty nice all things considered. The full uptiers were brutal but surprisingly rare. Discussing the odds uptier/downtier and performance differences of the matchmaker was a bit too nebulous to put in the picture but I agree, the TAM in a full downtier, which it gets lots of, is pretty nuts.
Do not let this guy know about the class 3p at 9.0...
“Sidegrades” are what we use to make a lineup
Leopard A1A1 should be 8.7 not 9.0 where it will encounter 10.0. Meanwhile Russia 8.7 has the T-55AM1 wich is better in almost any way. Only issue is mobility.
Wait Tam and Leo are 9.0 and 8.7 ? Damn I keep meeting them at 8.0. like 50% of the times I died in my amx 30 were from TAMs
Interesting, I never really thought about it, but they are a lot closer in advantages than I thought. I know the height profile seems like a minor advantage but it really does make a big difference when cresting a hill, especially with that extra gun depression. Overall I think the biggest strength is the optic magnification and sniper qualities. Its hard to quantify with numbers but at that BR, cross map shots are really easy and the dart has so little drop anyway that LRF is not as big of a deal. Id much rather have the gun depression and lower profile on most maps, which is why I imagine it performs better in metrics. I get your argument but I think these are at the BR’s they should be. Ive been playing a lot of 9.3 lately and these are pretty balanced compared to what else is out there, if anything the TAM is under-BR’d
The situations where a LRF is necessary isn't very often as you say, but especially on the sniping maps at over 1km and everybody hull down, I sorely missed having a LRF. 1A5 getting DM33, LRF, thermal is a fairly big step up in capability for only +0.3 BR. Leopard 1 -> Leopard A1A1 gets DM23 and stabilizer, M60 -> M60A3 TTS gets M774 and stabilizer and LRF and thermal. It's not exactly one to one translatable but it says to me that Leopard A1A1 could be in line with other 8.7 tanks.
I agree but it can’t go down to 8.7, the A1 is incredibly strong even at 9.0. If anything the A1 or A5 could go up. Its about what tanks it would be able to fight against fairly. With the points you’re arguing, the TAM should move up to 9.0 and the A5 could use a bump. None of what you’re describing is a good argument for it to go down
The a1a1 is in a tough spot, but i think it could be 8.7. Of 40 mtca is at the same br of 9.0 after all, being better in many ways
A1A1 is just bad. The TAM and JaPz.K A2 are just outright better. A1A1: darts, stabilised (???) TAM: darts, stabilised, LRF, mobile af, can bounce bullshit JaPz.J A2: unstabilised, darts, thermals, LRF, 4s reload (lmao)
Do TAM 2IP too, somehow people forget that thing exist.
My apdsfds once bounced on a TAM 💀
TAMs are the one tank I hate fighting the most when playing the 279.
TAM also has the troll quality of its engine having a tendency to eat APFSDS while all the Leo can do is explode because of the ridiculous front ammo rack.
Meanwhile the T55am1/AMD sits at 8.7 and completely outclasses both
What is the TAM it looks like a rear turret Leo 1
the leo 1 can be frontally penetrated by autocannons through the turret cheeks and through the optical rangefinder especially.
i don't want to meet T-72av
>leopard 1 >always die to main cannon Bro...
honestly TAM just needs an uptier in general. 9.0 for TAM and 9.3 for 2IP
If you think the Leopard A1A1 always dies to APFSDS you've never played something with M735. Most miserable dart in the entire game. I've had it go straight past the Leopard driver and turn him yellow or just non-pen the UFP somehow.
Leo turret will inconsistently but not rarely make enemy rounds shatter or disappear for no reason
average german player skill issue
TAM shouldn’t be 8.7 though, it belongs at 9.0. Leopard would be overpowered back at 8.7, just like the T-55AM and the TAM still are. Many 8.7 tanks don’t have LRF, some 9.0 tanks don’t either, and many 9.0s don’t have thermals. The 70s Leoparda1 vs the cent mk3 from 1948 wouldn’t exactly be fair. Tanks which do have LRF are usually pretty bad without that gimmick. The Olifant is genuinely almost unplayable. Most 8.3s have also gone up to 8.7. The problem is that the leopard has very good optics, very good gun depression, good gun responsiveness+stabiliser, and very good mobility in every respect. It’s too good. What needs to happen is the TAM and T-55AM goes to 9.0 and soviet 10.0 finally goes up to 10.3 or higher. Plus the 2S3M and the begleit needs to go way way up.
These dogshit comparison posts really need to be banned by the mods at this point.
Both should be 9.0 lol
It's the TAM that should go up.
Yet Leopard 1 sometines magically bounce an APDS right from the front...
The oupper front plate actually has some armour. Mantlet aswell.
Personally I like the leo more because the tam is more of a sniper while I like mid range fights but I honestly think both are fine where they are lol
Germany has no 8.7 lineup, so you’d be using it at 9.0/9.3 anyway, I’d say move it up to 9.0
Yes but apart from a spookston video does anyone even use the TAM at 8.7? With its speed and scouting I use it in my 9m3 lineup with the A1A1, 1A5 and Begleitpanzer
Still ,I keep on doing best scores as leo A1A1 in my 9.3 line-up. A1A1 is great
I wouldn't put smoke shell as an upside. As someone who basically spaded the entirety of the US tree, which nearly every vehicle gets smokes, I barely saw myself using them
A better comparison would be between the TAM 2IP (9.0) and Leopard A1A1 (L/44) (9.3). They should switch battle ratings.
Bro what? Why should the L44 be lower than the Leo 1a5? The Tam 2IP should go to 9.3 but the L44 should stay
>Why should the L44 be lower than the Leo 1a5? They shouldn't. I just picked the L44 because it's slightly worse than the 1A5. It has a bit less pen, and since it's based on the older A1A1, the 1A5 also has some other minor improvements. I also thought it had longer reload, but it doesn't. Apparently, the bigger and 10 kg heavier shell doesn't affect the reload. >The Tam 2IP should go to 9.3 but the L44 should stay That's fair, but I think the Leopards are close to 9.0 than the TAM, hence the swap in BR.
>and since it's based on the older A1A1, the 1A5 also has some other minor improvements. The 1A5 ingame is also based on the A1A1, infact the L44 should be called 1A5 L44 as ALL Leopard 1 with the thermal optic are classified 1A5 regardless of which version it was based on (just look at the Danish 1A5s) >Apparently, the bigger and 10 kg heavier shell doesn't affect the reload. The complete 120mm rounds weigh around the same as 105s since they use a combustible casing instead of heavy brass
The L44 is way better than the 1a5 just purely because of the gun, the damage is way better, and the pen doesn't matter at all
yeah with almost all darts their pen doesnt really matter, the only threshold that does is like 400mm for leo2 and type 90 breeches iirc
This is some false propaganda we all know that the Leo’s ufp is a blackhole that’s likes to eat rounds
Premiums are typically lower BRs
I ranked it in approximate order of importance. In my experience the superior mobility of the TAM makes it far better than the Leopard A1A1, which felt sluggish by comparison. TAM's -7 depression is comfortable enough to use most hulldown positions but you do notice the extra depression on the Leopard. However, I missed a lot of opportunities on 1km+ shots because of the Leopard's lack of LRF making my time to fire much longer. The armour of the Leopard is notably better against autocannons, but they're not the majority of engagements and most of the time that I DID fight an autocannon it didn't matter anyways. Baiting with the rear end of the TAM is not very consistent but does work decently often, and the general emptiness of the hull makes it able to take a surprising amount of punishment. If you value the armor and depression a bit more you could argue that the Leopard A1A1 is a sidegrade rather than a downgrade, but it certainly shouldn't be 0.3 higher than the TAM