WolFie90

USA 8.0 - 10.0 is not OP by far

On 22/02/2019 at 21:04, chrkiiler said:

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm 

m774 pen under-performing by some 10-20 in game rn

No.

 

On 22/02/2019 at 21:04, chrkiiler said:

https://imgur.com/a/SjCiG8D t64A armor is too weak

indeed its only the upgraded 60 105 50 variant that has 380 mm protection (in rha)

Yes, should be 305-335mm.

 

On 22/02/2019 at 21:04, chrkiiler said:

3bm32 penetration values 

https://i.imgur.com/aFQXzjf.png

(unreliable this one is) https://i.imgur.com/1Npqn2m.png

No.

 

On 22/02/2019 at 21:04, chrkiiler said:

could you then show me what you entered into the calculator in order to get your penetration values

in addition to this the 3bm32 is not a long-rod apfsds but a mono-block apfsds which are not the same thus it wont work in the calculator

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html (source on what 3bm32 is)

the T-72 ural (first production and also most widely exported) has 295mm steel armor on its turret when the T-72A and T-72M1 were introduced these both had the same turrets pictured here from a ukranian tank factory worker "leaking" the turret armor as its technically still confidential but security is extremely lax (i can give you the source of the guy if needed but for now this should do)

https://imgur.com/a/nyG0Yhr

and yeah i was wrong base t72 dosent have 295mm turret armor 

.....

Long rod penetrators are penetrators with a length to diameter ratio of higher than 10:1, has nothing to do with being "monobloc" or not.

Monobloc simply refers to the construction, meaning no jacket or "composite" construction is used but only a simple single penetrator rod with a ballistic windshield and tail assembly.

 

On 22/02/2019 at 21:04, chrkiiler said:

3bm32 penetrator length is stated to be 480mm long according to http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html again

penetrator length also does not always mean maximum penetration (although will become a limiting factor at some point)

Eh, that's wrong, it clearly states the penetrator itself is only 380mm long.

 

21 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

They're correct against RHA.

 

They're overperforming against composites, except, there's not really any data available on tungsten cored ammunition vs composites, so we don't know by how much they're overperforming.

TBF, they're also overperforming between 15° and 60°:

Spoiler

penetration%2Bgraph.png

unknown.png

Which, incidently is the angle most composites on NATO MBTs are at.

 

21 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

T-64A, T-62M1 & T-55AM are all underperforming against KE for their glacis arrays.

T-64's, T-72's and T-80's all have underperforming CE protection for their base armour.

T-64B and T-80B glacis arrays are overperforming against KE.

Turret KE values seem to be roughly correct across the board, perhaps the 500mm zone starts a bit too close to the mantlet, dunno for sure.

Yeah, they're all over the place, T-64B/80B/72A all have the max armour value and thus overperform against APFSDS (in a specific way) but largely underperform against CE.

Turrets are just a big mess, the T-64Bs turret in particular as the cheek composite is angled towards the breech meaning any shot to the mantlet area usually hits that internal angled portion and is deflected into the breech instead of into the crew's faces.

While the values are mostly correct for the cheeks, the way it's modelled is suboptimal and very weird.

 

21 hours ago, SunsetShimmers said:

They're overperforming according to the L-O equation, even against RHA.

 

Eg, 3BM9 has been 'fitted' through the longrods calculator to produce penetration that agrees with Soviet sources, by using the most optimistic data possible for the rod, the maximum diameter of 44mm and a 600 BHN hardness (when it was 310 BHN steel).

It should have around 140-150mm at 60 degrees at 10 meters penetration instead of the 182mm it currently has.

Only BM9.

 

19 hours ago, terror51247 said:

Penetration values for Vant.

Soviet standard.

And they're wrong, probably using lower hardness steel as test medium.

 

19 hours ago, SunsetShimmers said:

EDIT: note that Russia has continued to use the Soviet methods, leading to further over-estimation, as seen with these Russian estimates for Western APFSDS:

  Reveal hidden contents

F6ADXT9.png?width=756&height=468

 

Eg, according to Lanz-Odermatt, DM33 should have about 250mm at 60 degrees at 2000 meters range, not 270-280mm.

And M829 should have only 230mm at 60 degrees at 2000 meters range, not 270-280mm.

 

tl:dr version? Soviet and Russian sources consistently overestimate penetration (and armor effectiveness, because they base that off their estimated penetration figures), for both their own equipment and foreign.

Ahah, yeah, some of them are overestimated, some underestimated.

 

DM33 for instance is correct in there as it penetrates ~520mm at 0° 200m according to the Swedes and ~480mm at 2000m.

 

They don't consistently overestimate penetration, this book was by a university.... not the actual Soviet/Russian intelligence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally got the Leo2a4 today and man does this thing kick some butt. After putting over a thousand games in the Abrams  I just don't understand why people think the Abrams is miles better than the Leo. They both feel pretty equal to each other. I think it all comes down to a learn to play issue and not tank performance.  

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kenny110 said:

So I finally got the Leo2a4 today and man does this thing kick some butt. After putting over a thousand games in the Abrams  I just don't understand why people think the Abrams is miles better than the Leo. They both feel pretty equal to each other. I think it all comes down to a learn to play issue and not tank performance.  

 

Well, mostly referring to pre-ammo changes, the M1IP was literally superior in every single regard.

 

Mobility? M1IP is superior.

Armour? M1IP is superior.

Survivability? M1IP is superior.

Firepower? M1IP was superior, now it's probably tied.

Gun handling? M1IP is superior.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Mobility? M1IP is superior.

Armour? M1IP is superior.

Survivability? M1IP is superior.

Firepower? M1IP was superior, now it's probably tied.

Gun handling? M1IP is superior.

I'm not sure if the IPM1 is superior in mobility as the added armor has seemed to slow it down quite a bit. The armor on the M1 is inferior when when defending against KE rounds but overall better against CE rounds. As for the firepower, I would say it's a tie. The M1 has a weaker round but an ever so faster reload while the Leopard has access to much better rounds but at a cost of reload speed. I do believe that the M1 is superior in gun handling as I haven't tested the Leopard 2A4. Survivability is a little bit more difficult to determine. The M1 has huge weakspots that are pretty easy to hit while the Leopard 2A4 does not. The hull armor of the Leopard is indeed lacking in the lfp and it may be possible to ammo rack the tank by shooting the lfp but then again for the Abrams if you get hit in the breach or the turret face, the probability of the round going through the armored panel to hit the ammunition is equally if not more possible. Survivability from the side is really a tie as both have the same layout in general.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T1E6X1 said:

I'm not sure if the IPM1 is superior in mobility

 

Check these (and play them at the same time, it'll be even more clear how much faster the M1 is at certain aspects, primarily hull traverse):

 

Leo 2A4

Spoiler

 

 

M1IP

Spoiler

 

 

Edit:

 

Forgot to put the neutral steering into the M1IP clip, regardless, it's 8:66 seconds, I can upload it as proof if you wish.

 

Quote

The armor on the M1 is inferior when when defending against KE rounds

 

Again, factually incorrect:

 

These are the armour values against KE ammunition, colour coded so the difference is even more apparent.

 

htskryks.png.cb0ea506bf87ffeb73dbece9802

 

(Feel free to double-check these values yourself)

 

Quote

 I do believe that the M1 is superior in gun handling as I haven't tested the Leopard 2A4.

 

They are identical apart from three area's:

 

M1IP has a horizontal turret traverse advantage 6°/sec.

Leopard 2A4 has a vertical traverse advantage of 8°/sec (vertical traverse isn't as important as turret traverse, for obvious reasons).

M1IP has 1° more gun depression.

 

Quote

Survivability is a little bit more difficult to determine. The M1 has huge weakspots that are pretty easy to hit while the Leopard 2A4 does not.

 

Woah, excuse me? What??

 

Leopard has plenty of weakspots:

  • Lower glacis (with the ammunition rack behind it).
  • Mantlet, which is far larger than the M1's mantlet.
  • Optics insert in right-cheek.
  • Shells ricochet into the turret when striking the upper-upper plate.

 

Quote

but then again for the Abrams if you get hit in the breach or the turret face, the probability of the round going through the armored panel to hit the ammunition is equally if not more possible.

 

No, it's not.

 

Leopard 2A4's hull rack gets filled with 17 or more rounds carried.

M1IP's turret bustle largely clears the mantlet weakspot with even up to 30 rounds carried.

 

Futhermore, the problem with the Leopard, is that the driver is off-set to the right, he's now in a direct line with the gunner and commander, which means you can rack up 3/4 crew with a single shot, which is a OHK.

 

rgjrm.png.5199082bf8f99b73516351a98bfac9

 

You cannot do this against an M1 Abrams frontally anywhere near as easily.

 

Quote

Survivability from the side is really a tie as both have the same layout in general.

 

Again, no, it does not.

 

From the side, you can't ammo rack an M1, you can ammo rack a Leopard 2A4.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2019 at 18:20, Necrons31467 said:

 

From the side, you can't ammo rack an M1, you can ammo rack a Leopard 2A4.

As a wise man once said:

On 25/02/2019 at 18:20, Necrons31467 said:

factually incorrect

M1 Abrams kills: beginning of video (left side), 1:29 (left side), 3:00 (left side), 4:32 (left side), 6:14 (right side)

 

On 25/02/2019 at 18:20, Necrons31467 said:

Leopard 2A4's hull rack gets filled with 17 or more rounds carried.

M1IP's turret bustle largely clears the mantlet weakspot with even up to 30 rounds carried.

So, carry only 17 shots? Boom, problem solved.

 

On 25/02/2019 at 18:20, Necrons31467 said:

Leopard has plenty of weakspots:

  • Lower glacis (with the ammunition rack behind it).
  • Mantlet, which is far larger than the M1's mantlet.
  • Optics insert in right-cheek.
  • Shells ricochet into the turret when striking the upper-upper plate.

I mean yeah, technically that's a weak spot. Although an entire nation still can't penetrate it at all (even at point blank), and I wonder which nation that is...

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it all comes down to player skill if you have trouble killing an Abrams that's on you not because the tank is op. I have the Leo 2k and a4 and I have no trouble killing the Abrams its very easy you just need to use a bit of aim.   

Edited by Kenny110
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

As a wise man once said:

M1 Abrams kills: beginning of video (left side), 1:29 (left side), 3:00 (left side), 4:32 (left side), 6:14 (right side)

 

So let's see, he's firing at a fully loaded A.I. Abrams that's also completely stationary at point blank range, and he still needs a full second to pixel hunt for the blast doors.

 

39 minutes ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

So, carry only 17 shots? Boom, problem solved.

 

And run out of ammo in a few minutes, Boom, problem appears!

 

39 minutes ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

I mean yeah, technically that's a weak spot. Although an entire nation still can't penetrate it at all (even at point blank), and I wonder which nation that is...

 

Doesn't make it any less of a weakspot, the M1 Abrams doesn't have it, infact, it's optics are in the same spot, except they help soak up damage after penetrating hits.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

So let's see, he's firing at a fully loaded A.I. Abrams that's also completely stationary at point blank range, and he still needs a full second to pixel hunt for the blast doors.

But what did you say?

On 25/02/2019 at 18:20, Necrons31467 said:

From the side, you can't ammo rack an M1, you can ammo rack a Leopard 2A4.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it's possible. I'm not going to play top tier constantly just to find some niche moments (90-degrees on the side of an enemy Abrams tank) to prove you wrong, besides I shot both sides (and one of which does get filled first).

 

2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

And run out of ammo in a few minutes, Boom, problem appears!

Sounds like you need to shoot less, rangefind more. I personally carry only 16 shells in my T-72A and do pretty well. I also only carry a maximum of 20 shells in my Challenger Mk. II.

 

2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Doesn't make it any less of a weakspot, the M1 Abrams doesn't have it, infact, it's optics are in the same spot, except they help soak up damage after penetrating hits.

Never said it wasn't. Just stated that the M1 Abrams, the god tier unkillable tank, can't even penetrate it. Everyone else can though, so it definitely is a weak spot.

3 hours ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

I mean yeah, technically that's a weak spot. Although an entire nation still can't penetrate it at all (even at point blank), and I wonder which nation that is...

 

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

Sounds like you need to shoot less, rangefind more.

 

Or... you need to fire more and get more kills during a match?

 

9 hours ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

I personally carry only 16 shells in my T-72A and do pretty well.

 

T-72A has a longer reload.

 

9 hours ago, TheTurtleTanker said:

I also only carry a maximum of 20 shells in my Challenger Mk. II.

 

Why bother? penetrating hits in the hull are lethal anyways, might as well carry more ammunition.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

We shall see.

M829.png.633402628c32033707135d7d3be5f97

 

Well that's wrong.

 

EDIT: I mean, that's way too much penetration; it should be about 407mm at 0 degrees, 238mm at 60 degrees.

 

EDIT 2: derp, I was wrong. Used wrong penetrator length. Gaijin's penetration for M829 is reasonably accurate.

Edited by SunsetShimmers
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Well that's wrong.

 

EDIT: I mean, that's way too much penetration; it should be about 407mm at 0 degrees, 238mm at 60 degrees.

 

Think you're confusing rounds there. This is an M829, not M833

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

Share this post


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

We shall see.

M829.png.633402628c32033707135d7d3be5f97

 

So let's get this straight.

 

Literally the only advantage the Leopard 2A4 currently holds over the M1IP is raw penetration.... welp, so much for that I suppose.

 

I really hope that A) Leopard 2A4 sees some fixes in the next patch and/or B) we get a Leopard 2A4 C Tech.

 

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

Share this post


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

Think you're confusing rounds there. This is an M829, not M833

 

I entered something slightly wrong; it should be 417mm at 0 degrees, 243mm at 60 degrees.

 

Spoiler

120mm_M829_projectile.png

Spoiler

AtJFV37.jpg

Spoiler

bFH4LEg.jpg

 

 

EDIT: here's 105mm M833:

Spoiler

clip1543.png

Spoiler

kqj58be.jpg

Spoiler

rJtN7Fk.jpg

 

So 105mm M833 would be about 380mm at 0 degrees, 222mm at 60 degrees, versus 120mm M829 with 417mm at 0 degrees and 243mm at 60 degrees.

 

EDIT: more like 470-484mm at 0 degrees, 274-283mm at 60 degrees for M829.

 

Edited by SunsetShimmers
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

So let's get this straight.

 

Literally the only advantage the Leopard 2A4 currently holds over the M1IP is raw penetration.... welp, so much for that I suppose.

 

I really hope that A) Leopard 2A4 sees some fixes in the next patch and/or B) we get a Leopard 2A4 C Tech.

I could be wrong, but every time more than 3 top nations get new top tank, Germany will always get something at the top too.

For the very least it will get DM33.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SunsetShimmers said:

 

I entered something slightly wrong; it should be 417mm at 0 degrees, 243mm at 60 degrees.

 

  Hide contents

120mm_M829_projectile.png

  Reveal hidden contents

AtJFV37.jpg

  Hide contents

bFH4LEg.jpg

 

 

EDIT: here's 105mm M833:

  Reveal hidden contents

clip1543.png

  Reveal hidden contents

kqj58be.jpg

  Hide contents

rJtN7Fk.jpg

 

So 105mm M833 would be about 380mm at 0 degrees, 222mm at 60 degrees, versus 120mm M829 with 417mm at 0 degrees and 243mm at 60 degrees.

 

There's an entire thread already about this

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/442959-m1a1-m829m829a1-performance-research-and-proofs/&

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

OP of that thread appears to have gotten the penetrator length wrong; according to the diagram of M829 dimensions I linked above, the penetrator is 407mm long, not 480mm.

 

EDIT: derp, I was wrong

Edited by SunsetShimmers
  • Sad 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SunsetShimmers said:

 

OP of that thread appears to have gotten the penetrator length wrong; according to the diagram of M829 dimensions I linked above, the penetrator is 407mm long, not 480mm.

 

 

Thread goes into further details, specifically this:

Spoiler
On 18/02/2019 at 00:17, TheTurtleTanker said:

It seems like it's from here: https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-90-0650

1geUfhY.png

Shouldn't the maximum velocity (straight from the barrel) be 1,750 meters per second? ~1,670 meters a second seems to be closer to the interim M827 shell.

qm1aXT5.png

Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278426.pdf

 

 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lVrizl said:

 

Thread goes into further details, specifically this:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Been doing further digging, looks like I was wrong to use the 15.06 times 27.05mm caliber figure from the dimensions diagram; the penetrator rod goes further back into the projectile, so it's about 460-480mm long.

I was also using 300 BHN steel target, when Gaijin appears to prefer 260 BHN.

 

Correcting for those factors gives 470-484mm at 0 degrees, 274-283mm at 60 degrees, so Gaijin's figures for M829 are actually reasonably correct.

 

Now if only they could do the same for 3BM42 Mango.

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going on at top tier? I have this quest running.. kill one vehicle 1.0 above you and win the match. I try it with the warrior combined with the chieftain mk.10.. means 9.0 (mostly 10.0 matches). I literally can't win a single match anymore. THE US are so useless at top tier out of a sudden. xm-1 get rekt by zsu-57, fall like flies to all kind of soviet vehicles like the t-72 or t-64.

 

then I checked some player stats.. lv12 and lv18 in top tier. Thanks Gaijin.

 

 

 


shot 2019.03.03 16.35.20.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.35.49.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.36.16.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.40.06.jpg
 

 

another match

 

 




542765213_shot2019_03_0316_48_47.thumb.j

1194995405_shot2019_03_0316_48_43.thumb.
shot 2019.03.03 16.48.41.jpg

 

this is awful.

 

Insanity. You literally can't win anymore. It is even worse as back then when the Abrams was dominating.

shot2019.03.0318.13.273jd5.jpgshot2019.03.0318.13.34ukdl.jpg

 

Edited by Rainbowprincess
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rainbowprincess said:

What is going on at top tier? I have this quest running.. kill one vehicle 1.0 above you and win the match. I try it with the warrior combined with the chieftain mk.10.. means 9.0 (mostly 10.0 matches). I literally can't win a single match anymore. THE US are so useless at top tier out of a sudden. xm-1 get rekt by zsu-57, fall like flies to all kind of soviet vehicles like the t-72 or t-64.

 

then I checked some player stats.. lv12 and lv18 in top tier. Thanks Gaijin.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 


shot 2019.03.03 16.35.20.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.35.49.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.36.16.jpg

shot 2019.03.03 16.40.06.jpg
 

 

another match

  Reveal hidden contents

 




542765213_shot2019_03_0316_48_47.thumb.j

1194995405_shot2019_03_0316_48_43.thumb.
shot 2019.03.03 16.48.41.jpg

 

this is awful.

 

Insanity. You literally can't win anymore. It is even worse as back then when the Abrams was dominating.

shot2019.03.0318.13.273jd5.jpgshot2019.03.0318.13.34ukdl.jpg

 

It is about to get much worse.

 

In Devserver the T-80U is basically invincible frontally, the gun breech is tiny and even the weakest LFP bounces L23 and M829 from time to time. The only way to defeat it is by shooting turret ring. Meanwhile it can kill US/UK tanks from 60% of frontal area. The sides are much stronger too.

 

But what really worries me is the Tunguska. It can already shoot down every helicopter from AB spawn (about 6km away)? With an extremely fast missile that never fails. The missile has 7kg warhead but somehow acts like it has 70kg - hit to Abrams or Challenger 2 UFP and the ammo explodes immediately. The guns only have 60mm pen but due to extremely high ROF, it kills any MBT from sides easily.

 

M1A1 is a great tank, but frankly not that different from IPM1 as M829 still can't defeat the T-80U easily. Combined with the very OP Leopard 2A5 (if modeled correctly, 700mm+ turret armor for KE), I can't see how the US team can win when the AH-1Z suddenly become sitting ducks.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

It is about to get much worse.

 

In Devserver the T-80U is basically invincible frontally, the gun breech is tiny and even the weakest LFP bounces L23 and M829 from time to time. The only way to defeat it is by shooting turret ring. Meanwhile it can kill US/UK tanks from 60% of frontal area. The sides are much stronger too.

Considering the maps are still CQC aiming at the driver hatch or getting a side shot should not be much of an issue similar to the other T series. And considering the ERA is covering the areas that most tanks already has issues penetrating the balance wont be any different depending on what the Germans get.

Quote

 

But what really worries me is the Tunguska. It can already shoot down every helicopter from AB spawn (about 6km away)? With an extremely fast missile that never fails. The missile has 7kg warhead but somehow acts like it has 70kg - hit to Abrams or Challenger 2 UFP and the ammo explodes immediately. The guns only have 60mm pen but due to extremely high ROF, it kills any MBT from sides easily.

It has been fixed from the looks, it is no longer able to kill an MBT reliably, as for helio's they needed to be balanced for the longest time now. They had too much of an dominant impact of tank RB, they will now have to learn real Helio tactics of using cover.

Quote

 

M1A1 is a great tank, but frankly not that different from IPM1 as M829 still can't defeat the T-80U easily. Combined with the very OP Leopard 2A5 (if modeled correctly, 700mm+ turret armor for KE), I can't see how the US team can win when the AH-1Z suddenly become sitting ducks.

Again the balance appears the same between the Abrams and T-80X. Abrams had issues penetrating the T series and already had to aim at weakspots which were easy to hit at close to medium ranges which most maps favor; Remember it wasn't the issue of penetrating the Abram's, it was actually killing it because of the internal modules and spaced out crew. The only big change is that American CAS no longer can ROFL stomp the enemy and now has a legitimate counter thus making top tier balance more fair. It all depends now on the Germans and if they really will get the 2A5 or if it was a mistake.

Edited by FallenZulu
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

Considering the maps are still CQC aiming at the driver hatch or getting a side shot should not be much of an issue similar to the other T series. And considering the ERA is covering the areas that most tanks already has issues penetrating the balance wont be any different depending on what the Germans get.

The driver area no longer gets penned. You need to aim at exactly the hatch or turret ring now.

And most players who get to use T-80U are very good at hiding their weaknesses.

 

49 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

It has been fixed from the looks, it is no longer able to kill an MBT reliably, as for helio's they needed to be balanced for the longest time now. They had too much of an dominant impact of tank RB, they will now have to learn real Helio tactics of using cover.

The problem is for helicopters, it is club or get clubbed. The radars are working far too good and IRL helicopters would avoid SPAAG especially the Tunguskas - it is countered by modern airstrike using stand-off missile or smart bombs.

 

49 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

Again the balance appears the same between the Abrams and T-80X. Abrams had issues penetrating the T series and already had to aim at weakspots which were easy to hit at close to medium ranges which most maps favor; Remember it wasn't the issue of penetrating the Abram's, it was actually killing it because of the internal modules and spaced out crew.

First the weakspots are now much harder to hit.

Second now all tanks are hard to kill - because long-rod APFSDS are so weak in post-pen.

 

Somehow this might be a deliberate balance - Soviet tanks get to fire the more deadly short rod, NATO tanks which have more survivability get the weaker long rod.

 

49 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

The only big change is that American CAS no longer can ROFL stomp the enemy and now has a legitimate counter thus making top tier balance more fair. It all depends now on the Germans and if they really will get the 2A5 or if it was a mistake.

The CAS stomp has been both sides for last 2 months. If RU gets 2+ Mi-35M up, it is game over for US as well.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.