WolFie90

USA 8.0 - 10.0 is not OP by far

6 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

You're basing this conclusion off of a single example that only looks at a single weakspot of a single MBT.

I would argue that there are more situations in which the reload advantage plays a role than there are situations where you're forced to fire at the driver's spot of a T-64B.

I really wouldn't trade my M68A1 on my M1IP for the L/44 from the Leo 2A4 in it's current state, if DM23 had proper post-pen? sure, in that case I could deal with the longer reload, but not before that point.

 

Isn't the M68A1 reloading too fast, as Gaijin claim they only use sustained reloading speed?

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Loongsheep said:

Isn't the M68A1 reloading too fast, as Gaijin claim they only use sustained reloading speed?

 

I'm not entirely sure to be honest, reload times is a sketchy thing that isn't easy to pin down.

 

Leopard 2A4 seems to be able to achieve 3-4 second reloads, but that's keeping the blast door open, which isn't done in War Thunder, similar figure for the M68 on the M1, except the M1 can lap load, which the 120 cannot.

The M1's also have a ready rack that's often overlooked, so initial reload for the first 3-4 rounds should be quicker either way.

 

I don't think 5 seconds vs 6 seconds on the Leopard 2 is that bad of a figure if we're looking at sustained reloads.

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

M833 and DM23 would both have virtually identical penetration values, both would have similar, if not identical post-penetration damage, except the M68A1 just reload quicker.

So tell me, why would anyone want to use the L/44 over the M68A1 in that situation?

 

The argument you're wanting to present disregards shell performance in favor for reload times, to which, even M735 would be more preferable to use in that context given the nature of armored targets that are susceptible to M735 hardly changes with M833.

 

Even with the old "buffed" penetration values of the 120mm DM23 and the initial penetration values of 105mm DM33, it proved to be ultimately underwhelming in practical gameplay ((being able to RNG pen the T-64b UFP yet hardly doing anything in damage regardless))

 

Even with the damage modifiers removed, it wouldn't matter anyway if the Leo2A4 came along with 120mm DM33 as it'd still lose out just because of the reload speed.

 

You don't need M774, M833 or hell, even M900 to knock out a Leo2A4 when M735 at a 5s reload time will always beat a Leo2A4 and as such, the Leo2A4 120mm will ALWAYS be rendered useless.

 

The earlier statement from you:

9 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Except, others also got nerfed, so only the US receiving bandaid ammo in this situation would be rather unfair.

 

You'd essentially be giving the M1's a round that completely nullifies the Leopard 2A4's 120mm once again. 

 

Given the above context and focus on argument, would be redundant. The M1 already has a round that completely nullifies the Leo2A4's 120mm from the get go simply because of M1's reload speed, not through penetration stats.

 

The underlying fact of the matter is that M833's shell performance is inferior to 120mm DM23 despite both having the same relevancy ingame. M833 cannot nullify a Leo2A4's 120mm by default.

 

If said round were to be implemented on the M60 Rise as it historically had as it's loadout... with the same reload of 6.7s... are you also going to boldly claim that M833 ((to reiterate as an inferior round to 120mm DM23)) is going to nullify the Leo2A4's 120mm?

Edited by lVrizl
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lVrizl said:

Even with the damage modifiers removed, it wouldn't matter anyway if the Leo2A4 came along with 120mm DM33 as it'd still lose out just because of the reload speed.

 

No, because DM33 means the Leopard 2A4 can pen a M1IP's turret cheeks.

 

Currently, DM23 cannot penetrate the turret cheeks much like how M774 or M735 also cannot pen the Leo's turret cheeks.

If both vehicles share (roughly) the same vulnerable areas, the reload time is what starts to matter more so than minute penetration differences.

 

This is also why I stated:

430183567_ysrsymr.thumb.png.69ccac603378

 

3 minutes ago, lVrizl said:

You don't need M774, M833 or hell, even M900 to knock out a Leo2A4 when M735 at a 5s reload time will always beat a Leo2A4 and as such, the Leo2A4 120mm will ALWAYS be rendered useless.

 

Again, you're glossing over the fact that M900 would mean the Leo's cheeks become paper at any distance.

 

3 minutes ago, lVrizl said:

If said round were to be implemented on the M60 Rise as it historically had as it's loadout... with the same reload of 6.7s... are you also going to boldly claim that M833 ((to reiterate as an inferior round to 120mm DM23)) is going to nullify the Leo2A4's 120mm?

 

No, in fact, I have on multiple occasions stated that I want M774 and/or M833 added for the M60A1 RISE.

 

weaetnkmy.thumb.png.610642ad4245f561d042

 

You're ignoring the fact that the M1IP beats the Leopard 2A4 in virtually all aspects already, adding further insult to injury would be the implementation of M833.

Opposite to that is the M60A1 RISE, which is VASTLY inferior in all aspects compared to a Leopard 2A4, giving that M833 would provide it with atleast some justification for it's current battle rating of 9.0.

Also, M60A1 reloads slower than the Leo 2A4.

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

No, because DM33 means the Leopard 2A4 can pen a M1IP's turret cheeks.

 

Currently, DM23 cannot penetrate the turret cheeks much like how M774 or M735 also cannot pen the Leo's turret cheeks.

If both vehicles share (roughly) the same vulnerable areas, the reload time is what starts to matter more so than minute penetration differences. 

 

So by your previous statements on how big the Leo2A4 turret mantlet is, it's roughly the same vulnerable areas with the hypothetical addition of DM33 towards each other meaning the Abrams still wins out in the end anyway due to reload.

 

Much of the cheek armor on the gunner / commander side is blocked by optics, absorbing shells more often than not.

 

1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

Again, you're glossing over the fact that M900 would mean the Leo's cheeks become paper at any distance.

 

Based on what? Jm33 pre-nerf was already having issues penning the cheeks of the Leo2A4 and I doubt the M900 would hold that much penetration

 

1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

No, in fact, I have on multiple occasions stated that I want M774 and/or M833 added for the M60A1 RISE.

 

weaetnkmy.thumb.png.610642ad4245f561d042

 

You're ignoring the fact that the M1IP beats the Leopard 2A4 in virtually all aspects already, adding further insult to injury would be the implementation of M833.

Opposite to that is the M60A1 RISE, which is VASTLY inferior in all aspects compared to a Leopard 2A4, giving that M833 would provide it with atleast some justification for it's current battle rating of 9.0.

Also, M60A1 reloads slower than the Leo 2A4.

 

.... Critical misunderstanding of the point addressed here about M833 and the context about the Abrams vs Leo2A4.

 

The M833, by itself, cannot nullify the Leo2A4.

 

That's why I mentioned the M60 Rise because it's a perfect example of this.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SaekoB said:

You're right 8.0 - 10.0 US is not OP, it starts at 6.7 and goes to 10.0 


Care to elaborate?

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree that the US 10.0 lineup is, without a doubt, the most powerful top tier lineup. The only problem is that I think I have played something like 20ish games in my Abrams and I only have a 30%WR or something around that.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MaterialWharf3 said:

I fully agree that the US 10.0 lineup is, without a doubt, the most powerful top tier lineup. The only problem is that I think I have played something like 20ish games in my Abrams and I only have a 30%WR or something around that.


Could very well be true. I've had days lately (since cristmas), when I play like 5 matches of toptier with USA in a day and i win only 1 of them. SL pool went soaring down to 0 and I seriously had to go down to tier 2 , or br 3.7 to farm money, for floating sinking abrams.

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2019 at 12:14, SaekoB said:

You're right 8.0 - 10.0 US is not OP, it starts at 6.7 and goes to 10.0 

Guess it starts at 6.3 Japan too since they get the same guns as US but with superior ammunition for their BR. 

 

They get a 2-plane stabilized tank at 7.7 on a better Leopard, and they get what the RISE should get at 8.7. Their 10.0 is objectively the best tank in the game.

 

Or did that one slip past you?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2019 at 11:31, Necrons31467 said:

 

And this is just your way of dismissing arguments.

 

 

Sure, where did I claim that it wouldn't happen?

 

You stated that the complaints would lessen as a result of your proposed changes, I don't think they will.

People will always find a way to cherry-pick a certain weakness of a vehicle and then blow it out of proportion in an effort to make the vehicle seem less effective than it really is.

 

 

M833 and DM23 would both have virtually identical penetration values, both would have similar, if not identical post-penetration damage, except the M68A1 just reload quicker.

So tell me, why would anyone want to use the L/44 over the M68A1 in that situation?

 

------

 

I think there's some confusion going on here, let me clarify by showing what I'd roughly want top-tier to look like:

 

8.3      M60A1 AOS /w M728    T-62A /w 3BM-6             Chieftain Mk 5 /w L15A3          Leopard 1 A1 /w DM12

8.7      M60A1 RISE /w M774   T-72 Ural /w 3BM-9        Chieftain Mk 10 /w L23             Leopard 1A4 /w DM23
9.3      XM-1 /w M735               T-64B /w 3BM-22           Challenger 1 Mk 1 /w L23         Leopard 2K /w DM13
10.0    M1 /w M774                  T-80B '83 /w 3BM-29      Challenger 1 Mk 2 /w L23A1    ----
10.3    M1IP /w M833               T-80BV /w 3BM-32         Challenger 1 Mk 3 /w L26         Leopard 2A4 B Tech /w DM23

 

Notes:

 

General:

Longrod damage modifiers removed across the board

Off-road top speed limitations for 3rd Gen MBT's removed

All NATO MBTs with blast doors will be counted as ammo racked when the blast doors are breached (and not just the M1Abrams)

 

US:

M60A1 AOS/RISE mantlets 127 > 325mm

XM-1 armour > ≈300-325mm vs APFSDS

M1IP turret cheeks 443 > 460mm vs APFSDS

M833 pen values > 400mm @ 0°, 230mm @ 60°

M1 / M1IP mantlet > (roughly) 350mm

 

Soviet:

Soviet tungsten cored APFSDS effectiveness vs composites reduced

T-80BV '85 glacis array, 460mm effective

T-72 Ural glacis vs APFSDS 270 > 310mm

3BM-32 pen values > 437mm @ 0°, 254mm @ 60°

Ammunition hit in carousel means 100% detonation rate

 

Britain:

L23A1 pen values > 230mm @ 60°

L26 pen values > (roughly) 480mm @ 0°, 265mm @ 60°

Challenger's CE protection raised to (roughly) 800mm

 

German:

Leopard 2A4 mantlet > (roughly) 400mm

Transmission rework for Leopard 2A4

(Kind of unsure what to put at the empty spot, any suggestions?.)

 

first of all i can tell you havent looked at their historical properties at all first of all the t64A uses the same armor as the t72 aka 80 106 20 steel textolite steel this gives 380mm protection against apfsds shells 

 

second of all the m774 now in game has accurate pen and also on another note lanz odermans equation will give shell pen estimates whithin 5% of what they will pen in real life and is generally considered extremely accurate as long as proper values are input into the calculator also only works for long rods which russian shells are not

 

it is to be mentioned the t72 you name isent even in game as the t72A is in game the t72 ural which you mention is the standard t72 which has no composite turret armor giving it 295 mm turret steel rha

the front plate still remains the same as the t72A and the t64A 

 

the penetration of the russian shells also seems to be vastly underestimated 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

3bm32 has 500mm flat pen and 250mm 60 degree pen at 2km distance which is quite far out 

the T-80BV armor array is quite simple its almost the same as the t64BV 

1427025025-soviet-tanks-glacis-armor-lay

the T-80BV has alot better armor than the T-80B do keep in mind usual test target steel is 260bhn while russian armor for the T-80BV is made of 300bhn steel the armor is rated at around 500 mm effectiveness atleast

ammo hit to the ammo carousel does result often in an ammo detonation but a center shot to ANY t-series tank it results in a killshit 90% of the time so i dont think there is any reason to change it

 

putting it at 100% should put other nations ammo at 100% detonation as well the ammo carousel is no diffrent to other ammo

 

in regards to ammunition and apfsds penetrators and armor

russian apfsds 3bm42 or later is designed to counter nera thus is effective vs all nera armored vehicles 

the m829 yes the so called god shell only has a 480mm long du penetrator this basically means it wont have more than 490 mm penetration and according to lanz oderman gets 482mm penetration (penetration is limited by core penetrator lenght) and the m829 while being 617 mm long (not the commonly claimed 627) only has a 480mm penetrator

so when using lanz oderman equation be sure to account for this and get the proper values

the m774 penetration in game right now as stated before is accurate

 

do keep in mind tanks like the m1a1 and m1a1ha could be added without them being op due to shells existing that can pen them

and with the confirmaton of challenger 2 we are likely to see T-80U/T-80UM or T-90 or possibly T-72B Leclerc 650 pen shell gang the leopard 2a5 possibly which would also add significantly more powerfull shells 

 

the m829a1 has been calculated to have around 600mm pen according to pixel measurement of the core penetrator which is around 650mm long shell is in itself 900mm long 

also using the t64B for armor in game is slightly misleading because the t80 has less armor the t64BV being the most armored CHONKIN LAD in the game in addition to this its the only soviet armored vehicle in game with a 200mm driver face steel block aka a giant rha steel block in front of the drivers face which is flat thus the armor in that area is very good compared to a t72A or t64A although still much less than front plate the t64A and t72A use a 100mm rha face block instead of 200mm so yeah

 

the us top tier perform so well because they have so much variety and currently sit on 3 abrams (one in effect 2 in performance) xm1 m1 and m1ip which all perform very well no matter the br in addition to very good top tier helicopter fighter plane and ground attack planes and helicopters this all in all makes them very powerfull

 

also try play simulator battles the americans have a 80% winrate there

i played simulator battles in my spaded t64BV and t80B with my mi24V and i lost 8/10 games purely because the cas spam was just stupid

you have to move under trees between houses of you are dead the enemy helicopters and fighters just kill you so fast 

even when i used air to air missiles on my heli the enemy fighters were able to kill me usually before i was able to shoot back due to warmup time on missiles

Edited by chrkiiler
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chrkiiler said:

first of all i can tell you havent looked at their historical properties at all

 

I have.

 

Quote

first of all the t64A uses the same armor as the t72 aka 80 106 20 steel textolite steel this gives 380mm protection against apfsds shells 

 

1) Who said anything about a T-64A?

 

2) What's your source on 380mm for the T-64A's glacis array?

    Designed protection for the T-64A is ''only'' 330mm, and not 380mm, which would roughly be the updated 60-105-50 array.

Spoiler

1341292804_DesignedprotectionT-64.thumb.

 

Quote

second of all the m774 now in game has accurate pen

 

Source?

 

Quote

and also on another note lanz odermans equation will give shell pen estimates whithin 5% of what they will pen in real life and is generally considered extremely accurate as long as proper values are input into the calculator also only works for long rods which russian shells are not

 

1) You accuse me of underestimating penetration values of 3BM-32, yet you now claim that Lanz Odermatt is highly accurate, where do you think I got my 3BM-32 penetration values from?

 

2) 3BM-32 is a longrod projectile, many of the Soviet/Russian shells from this period and onwards are now (segmented) longrods.

 

Quote

it is to be mentioned the t72 you name isent even in game as the t72A is in game the t72 ural which you mention is the standard t72 which has no composite turret armor giving it 295 mm turret steel rha

the front plate still remains the same as the t72A and the t64A 

 

1) I never said I limited my selection to vehicles that are in-game.

 

2) T-72 Ural's turret front in well in excess of 450mm, your 295mm figure is quite nonsensical.

Spoiler

1566204975_T-72Turret.jpg.c9d58113a0d79b

 

Quote

the penetration of the russian shells also seems to be vastly underestimated 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

3bm32 has 500mm flat pen and 250mm 60 degree pen at 2km distance which is quite far out 

 

3BM-32's penetrator is apparently 380mm in lenght, yet it somehow perforates in excess of 500mm of RHAe?

 

Riiight...

 

Quote

armor for the T-80BV is made of 300bhn steel the armor is rated at around 500 mm effectiveness atleast

 

Source?

 

Quote

putting it at 100% should put other nations ammo at 100% detonation as well the ammo carousel is no diffrent to other ammo 

 

Every book has letters in it.

Not everything with letters in it is a book.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone that claims US 8.0-9.0 is OP actually played that BR range?  You just get annihilated by Leo 1A1A1s and L44s, plus whatever the Russians field.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, *MiseryIndex556 said:

Has anyone that claims US 8.0-9.0 is OP actually played that BR range?  You just get annihilated by Leo 1A1A1s and L44s, plus whatever the Russians field.

It is true.

The T95E1 (not yet spaded) is pure suffering most of the times, as the gun handling and mobility are really poor and not stabilized. the M60s are much like other NATO MBTs but taller and slower. The M60A1 turret is missing a lot of armor.

 

M551 and M60A2 have junk gun that is just not meta. Too slow and fires HEAT.

 

I haven't unlocked the Bradley yet, but from my observation it is actually the best vehicle in that range.

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried war thunder once more yesterday to find out how it is currently, therefore I used my british 8.3 lineup. I have to admit that it didn't went very well. Not quite sure what happened here but british/US teams felt apart quite fast all the time and rarely put up a hard fight against the foes. I'm not sure if it is the overwhelming power of the RU/GER/ITA/FR connection or if US/GB teams are lackluster in competence. I guess it's a mixture of both

shot 2019.02.21 12.05.51.jpg

shot 2019.02.21 12.06.01.jpg

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried it too, but with a German 8.7 Lineup.

5 Rounds played - 4 Losses, 1 Win

 

The 4 Losses were all against the Sovjets alone. The 1 Win was together with Sovjets against a US/GB/FR Team.

Well, all of these Matches were 9.0 or higher....

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, Rainbowprincess said:

I tried war thunder once more yesterday to find out how it is currently, therefore I used my british 8.3 lineup. I have to admit that it didn't went very well.

 

It's a case of the FotM crowd being comfortably on the US side now, seriously, go and play a 10.0 US match, then check the profiles of your teammates, a significant portion is like Level 20-60 beginners with newly purchased XM-1's without any line-ups.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

It's a case of the FotM crowd being comfortably on the US side now, seriously, go and play a 10.0 US match, then check the profiles of your teammates, a significant portion is like Level 20-60 beginners with newly purchased XM-1's without any line-ups.

I thought this is a thing of the past, back then when the xm-1 was introduced and the US winrate dropped drastically. I was rarely fighting alongside the xm-1 in the chieftain mk.3

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rainbowprincess said:

I thought this is a thing of the past, back then when the xm-1 was introduced and the US winrate dropped drastically. I was rarely fighting alongside the xm-1 in the chieftain mk.3

 

Not really, it usually takes a while for that to truly kick into effect.

 

We've had the exact same thing with 2015 Leopard 1 spam, dominated for a while, then became nearly unplayable because of the number of inexperienced tankers driving the thing.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video should be classified under the 'comedy' section.

 

But seriously though, it's shocking how awful these video's are, did anyone bother to even proof-read the script? I mean, autoloader on the Abrams? what?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison between the T-80 and M1 were pretty good. They forgot to mention that it is possible to OHK an Abrams from anywhere on the turret front if theyre carrying enough ammunition (say 35 or 40 rounds). The real kicker is while the T-80 performs better than the Abrams, the Abrams has a repair cost somewhere around 3 times higher than the T-80. Totally unfair; there is no way you can justify this.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.