On 25/07/2019 at 13:45, Player_unknown said:

i do think if Gayjin wants to keep there game alive, even with powercreep, they will add the T-90 line...  With Leclerc and 2A5 still being the best MBT´s... it would be in order to see later T-90s models,  a hulldown 2a5 is still the best... Ariete cant pen it.. leclerc can be penned.. you could say T80U is good hulldown. but the gundepression takes away most locations it can use..  and the argue about 80s tanks fighting 90s-00s tanks cant be used here... its a game.. if Russian MBT´s is first as competetive in a 00s model vs a 80s Nato tank, so be it...  Abrams will most likely get there H model soon.. 2A5 will maybe get a new round, but its still good... hearing players cry about,, waaaaaa i cant point and click every tank... i want a better round... makes me sick, go play WoT or CoD plz...  if the later T-90s will be almost inpen frontaly, so be it.. i still think, you can snipe trough drivers hatch, or gunbreech like every other. plus those tanks will get 1 shot if even caught in a slight angle..    players who cry about 2A5s being bad now. are players who rush in with the head cut off and gets killed. like every other tank..  

 

how is a hulldown leopard 2a5 the best ? the second  you move a bit out to shoot everyone can kill U while shooting a little bit under the gun and knock out the entire crew 
anway i like the 2A6 since  has a bigger gun=better D: 

Edited by MuricaxSuffers
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

They will NEVER introduce DM53 - be assured.

I wouldn't be so sure to be honest. They already introduced M332 (aka Italian top tier round) despite it being actually younger than DM53.

Honestly, knowing gaijin, if they do decide to introduce even more MBTs then 2A6 will certainly come... and only with DM53 lol...

I hope that future won't come though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/08/2019 at 14:46, Klestius said:

They will NEVER introduce DM53 - be assured.

 

'' They will never introduce past '50s. ''

*Leopard 1 gets introduced*

 

'' Okay, Leopard 1 is fine, but they will never introduce composite MBT's. ''

*T-64A gets introduced*

 

'' Okay, T-64 is just a '60s design, they will never introduce actually modern MBT's because there's no sources for them. ''

*Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5, C1 Ariete gets introduced*

 

'' They will never introduce DM53 ''

.....

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2019 at 14:32, Necrons31467 said:

 

'' They will never introduce past '50s. ''

*Leopard 1 gets introduced*

 

'' Okay, Leopard 1 is fine, but they will never introduce composite MBT's. ''

*T-64A gets introduced*

 

'' Okay, T-64 is just a '60s design, they will never introduce actually modern MBT's because there's no sources for them. ''

*Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5, C1 Ariete gets introduced*

 

'' They will never introduce DM53 ''

.....

 

"Okay, our game engine can't handle mach speed aircraft" 
*adds F4 and MiG-21*

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

We have the T-90A modeled in game.

Why not just give it to the T-72A tree and add in other vehicles in between at a later date?

Thats the most likely route. T-90A is the most needed vehicle in soviet tree for top tier (to match Leo 2A5).

We have two new patches before 2020, which means a theoretical maximum of 4 new ground vehicles. 

In addition, T-72B '85 should be very viable at 9.7 while the 1989 model could be placed at 10.0: both have better protection than T-64B/80B and worse mobility.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/09/2019 at 18:43, Alan_Tovarishch said:

 In addition, T-72B '85 should be very viable at 9.7 while the 1989 model could be placed at 10.0: both have better protection than T-64B/80B and worse mobility.

 

 

How are T-72B obr.85 at 9.7 or even T-72B obr.89 at 9.7  supposed to be even remotely viable when at this BR those tanks are guaranteed to constantly  face Leo2A5 , Leclerc , Ariete etc etc ???

 

The only actually viable T-72  for top tier purpose  would be the T-72B3 obr.2016 ( or/and T-72B3M )   any other variant below that will simply not  be worth playing ! 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 09:46, Raldi92 said:

 

 

How are T-72B obr.85 at 9.7 or even T-72B obr.89 at 9.7  supposed to be even remotely viable when at this BR those tanks are guaranteed to constantly  face Leo2A5 , Leclerc , Ariete etc etc ???

 

The only actually viable T-72  for top tier purpose  would be the T-72B3 obr.2016 ( or/and T-72B3M )   any other variant below that will simply not  be worth playing ! 

 

Why do you think that?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/10/2019 at 05:53, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Why do you think that?

Because this game already has enough trash vehicles, USSR needs something that is actually better

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TovarishToNy said:

With the M1A2 getting introduced, the T-90A is the top priority right now while tanks like T-72B can be saved for later.

 

I don't mind having a T-90A, but there are alternative solutions. The T-80U could be moved up in BR and given a better APFSDS like Svinets. The T-72B can be added to reinforce the lower BR.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how the T90 would change much. The T80U already has great armor, aside from the usual weak spots. Unless the T90 gets rid of the carousel, I doubt it would change the situation. It's going to be slower than the T80U. 

Share this post


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

I just don't see how the T90 would change much. The T80U already has great armor, aside from the usual weak spots. Unless the T90 gets rid of the carousel, I doubt it would change the situation. It's going to be slower than the T80U. 

Unless they add T-90M but that would prolly outclass current tanks. It's on a par with ZTZ99A which is gonna be added someday.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If implemented I think a good solution that Gaijin will like is if the T-90A gets two modification options:

 

1. The stock config with the IR dazzlers and the rest of the Shtora soft-kill system.

 

2. An "upgraded" config without Shtora dazzlers. This keeps the standard laser warning and soft-kill protection system and the dazzlers are replaced by triangular ERA blocks.

 

This gives the players a choice and Gaijin will like it because we have to grind more modifications.

Edited by Flavettes
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2019 at 20:53, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Why do you think that?

 

Because it is the reality ! Anything below T-72B3M in the T-72 family  would be obsolete against tanks such as Leo2A5 , Leclerc  and now M1A2 , if you strive for balance then anything inferior wouldn't make much sense , Russian TT has plenty of obsolete top tier tanks  already ( T-72A , T-64A , T-64B(V) ,  i could even add T-80B in the list  but at least T-80B has mobility going for it  ) even T-80U is barely capable keeping up thanks to mixed battles, if T-80U had to solo face Leo2A5s etc it would get stomped . So what is the point  adding even more obsolete tanks is the real question ?

 

On top of that even T-72B3M would be FAR from being  100% comparable to Leo2A5 etc beucause it's frontal ERA  coverage on the turret  is pretty poor making it an insta-dead breach meme , it's still a one shot from the side even at harsh angles  and more likely than non Gaijin will model it with the same FAKE driver-viewport weakspot as all the other Soviet MBTs so yeah ........

 

To me only T-80BVM and T-90M make real sense .

 

3 hours ago, bdomino said:

Unless they add T-90M but that would prolly outclass current tanks. It's on a par with ZTZ99A which is gonna be added someday.

 

No not really if Gaijin is carefull and doesn't give its best ammo then T-90M would be the most balanced tank against the other NATO top dogs ,T-90M is the only Russian tank that  can offer a  meta where finally everyone has to aim for small weak spots instead of point and clicking ( at least from the front that is ) .

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Unless they add T-90M but that would prolly outclass current tanks. It's on a par with ZTZ99A which is gonna be added someday.

The problem with this line of thinking is that your not taking it's a video game into account. T-90M sounds good on paper perhaps but put into game context...

 

Gun Depression hugely matters because third person ridge poking

 

Reverse matters because of third person ridge poking and corner poking

 

3 crew = slower repair

 

3 crew without last stand mechanic = instant death 1 hit 

 

Small profile is actually CRAP in a game. Big box tanks like Abrams can have rounds sail right through it or hit only 1 module at a time. Abrams won't die from a rear engine shot, the engine will absorb it. But T80 size? The shrapnel has just enough range to set off the ammo. Even when you shoot breach on T80 series it kills the gunner because the physical size is so small it leaks! Shoot Leopard breach and no crew injure.

 

G8zNfgW.png

 

T90 will be just a meme like T80u

 

 

Edited by DaffanZ
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the internal layout of equipment in the tanks is modeled accurately, a lot of the advantages that bigger tanks like the Abrams enjoy will be invalidated. 

 

For example, the gun elevation system, turret traverse system and the hydraulic reservoir, pump, and electronics in the Abrams are all installed under the gun, directly behind the driver (if the turret is pointed forwards). This isn't modeled. If you shoot the center of the hull in WT, all you do is you kill the driver and if you had enough penetration power, your shell hits the engine. Then what always happens is the Abrams sees you and has plenty of time to properly aim and OHK you. What should actually happen is the Abrams won't be able to aim at all at the very least, and it should be set on fire if it were in real life.

 

Funnily enough, all this stuff is modeled in the Leo 1 up to the Leo 2K. There's a big cylinder in front of the gunner where the hydraulic gun elevation system is located and hitting it will disable the gun elevation system.

 

What's also funny is that the Leo 2A4 and 2A5 don't have their hydraulic reservoir and pump modeled for the hydraulic gun elevation and turret rotation system. They should be in the turret bustle next to the ammo and there's a blowout panel for it because in real life, high pressure hydraulics containing highly flammable hydraulic fluid can explode.

 

In reality, an IFV with an autocannon should be able to penetrate the thin turret bustle armour and immobilize the gun controls entirely. But in WT, that space in the turret bustle is conspicuously empty and the Leo 2 has no such weakness.

 

Real:

 

Spoiler

EMES-15_09_Leopard-2A1_Turret.jpg

 

Leopard-2-koncpecja.jpg

 

War Thunder:

 

Spoiler

754411979_shot2019_10_2700_38_27.jpg.7b0

 

No one complains about this. Heck, nobody even noticed this. And if they did, they wouldn't even care.

Edited by Flavettes
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with this persistent "not adding a historically significant tank because of meta" crap? How would you explain the WWII or early-mid Cold War tanks where the Soviet tanks don't have something like the Tiger II or the post war ones at 8.0+ with mobility and fast reverse speed when they completely have different doctrines? The real culprit on why the T-90 was designed like that is because of limitations in funding due to the collapse of the Soviet Union along with other real life factors that made the tank industry in Russia lag behind and those made balancing top tier post-Soviet Russia impossible to match with modern NATO tanks. The Russian government did not choose the T-90 over the T-80 for no reason despite T-80 performs better on paper even with its obvious flaws like high fuel consumption which is not in the game and what happened in Grozny in 1995 that destroyed the T-80's reputation in real life.

 

Gaijin have to choose between the fans of tank history especially fans of the T-72/T-90 family or the people who wanted meta performance on the vehicles or find a compromise on this issue to not **** either of the groups. This issue proves that 'Russian bias' is a myth at top tiers when Gaijin couldn't even create a dedicated map pool for modern tanks with maps made for them instead of playing the same old WWII maps again that mostly forces CQB which the tanks weren't even designed to fight like that unlike their WWII counterparts along with the BR issue where they should decompress the BRs 8.0 onwards as they are a huge mess atm.

 

Also the models like they should've removed that artificial driver's hatch weak spot on the Soviet MBTs and make ERA actually work correctly.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler
37 minutes ago, Flavettes said:

If the internal layout of equipment in the tanks is modeled accurately, a lot of the advantages that bigger tanks enjoy will be invalidated. 

 

For example, the gun elevation system, turret traverse system and the hydraulic reservoir, pump, and electronics are all installed under the gun, directly behind the driver (if the turret is pointed forwards). This isn't modeled. If you shoot the center of the hull in WT, all you do is you kill the driver and if you had enough penetration power, your shell hits the engine. Then what always happens is the Abrams sees you and has plenty of time to properly aim and OHK you. What should actually happen is the Abrams won't be able to aim at all at the very least, and it should be set on fire if it were in real life.

 

Funnily enough, all this stuff is modeled in the Leo 1 up to the Leo 2K. There's a big cylinder in front of the gunner where the hydraulic gun elevation system is located and hitting it will disable the gun elevation system.

 

What's also funny is that the Leo 2A4 and 2A5 don't have their hydraulic reservoir and pump modeled for the hydraulic gun elevation and turret rotation system. They should be in the turret bustle next to the ammo and there's a blowout panel for it because in real life, high pressure hydraulics containing highly flammable hydraulic fluid can explode.

 

In reality, an IFV with an autocannon should be able to penetrate the thin turret bustle armour and immobilize the gun controls entirely. But in WT, that space in the turret bustle is conspicuously empty and the Leo 2 has no such weakness.

 

Real:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

EMES-15_09_Leopard-2A1_Turret.jpg

 

Leopard-2-koncpecja.jpg

 

War Thunder:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

754411979_shot2019_10_2700_38_27.jpg.7b0

 

No one complains about this. Heck, nobody even noticed this. And if they did, they wouldn't even care.

 

This is a very nice point you made there . Realisticaly there are much more '' damage modules '' in all tanks and WT should model those !

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TovarishToNy said:

What's up with this persistent "not adding a historically significant tank because of meta" crap?

 

Im not sure to understand your comment here .  There are priorities and priority is to give to Russian TT something equal to other nations top tier tanks namely Leopard 2A5 , Leclerc  and upcoming M1A2 , if that implies skipping  some historically significant designs then so be it those designs can be added at a later date to fill the gaps

 

Point being I'm not going to fight Leopard 2A5s and M1A2 with  some  historically important BUT outdated meta-wise variant of the T-72 , T-80 , T-90 families for the sake of having historically significant designs being added fist  .... this is called masochism ! 

 

Note how German tree never got the predecessors of Leopard 2A4 so this is nothing new hence why i can't understand what you are on about  .

 

27 minutes ago, TovarishToNy said:

Also the models like they should've removed that artificial driver's hatch weak spot on the Soviet MBTs and make ERA actually work correctly.

 

Can't argue with that .

Edited by Raldi92
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:
  Reveal hidden contents

This is a very nice point you made there . Realisticaly there are much more '' damage modules '' in all tanks an WT should implement those !

 

What I find particularly funny is that in this game, many tanks already have individual rounds in their damage model and they can appear or disappear according to the first order ammo rack mechanic, and yet massive pieces of equipment like hydraulic reservoirs and pumps are not modeled in the most important (literally tier defining) top tier tanks.

  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

Note how German tree never got the predecessors of Leopard 2A4

 

The earlier Leopard 2s never saw combat unlike the T-72(various modifications including T-72A, T-72B 85/89, BA and the export versions) while the 2A4 is the most widespread of the Leopard 2s.

 

The Abrams tree did get M1, 1PM1 and M1A1 which the first two have the obsolete 105mm gun but still got added to the game so there's this inconsistency.

 

As for your skipping to T-90M suggestion, people will just complain and beg for the latest versions of tanks like M1A2 SEP/SEPV2, Leo 2A6/2A7, various Challenger 2 upgrades, Type 10, Type 99, T-14, etc and the vicious cycle goes on until Gaijin stops adding more modern tanks just like Abrams drivers did by begging for later versions since the M1 gets introduced. I remember some people wanted Gaijin to skip the T-72A and add the T-72B instead but the former was added anyway while Gaijin added the 2A5 too soon later on instead of upgrades for 2A4 that caused more people to beg for more modern tanks including T-90A and the 2A5 already proved that even the limited ammo selection and repair cost, this is not good enough to balance even if they slightly raised the BR cap up to 10.3 which is still not enough like they could've went 11+ and decompress the BRs at high tiers instead.

 

Gaijin rushing to introduce as much modern tanks as possible is what causes people to beg more and more modern tanks for their favorite nation and it will continue breaking top tier if Gaijin doesn't do something about fixing the quality of life on high tiers like 9.0-9.3 tanks now mostly face tanks at their own BR or lower with the BR cap increase.

medal

Share this post


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

The earlier Leopard 2s never saw combat unlike the T-72(various modifications including T-72A, T-72B 85/89, BA and the export versions) while the 2A4 is the most widespread of the Leopard 2s.

 

I just want to point out that no Leopard 2A4 has faced any real combat until very recently when they were used by Turkey in their ops in Northern Syria. Only the Leo 2A5 and Leo 2A6M have been used in combat in Afghanistan against the local insurgents who did not have any heavy anti-tank weapons whatsoever. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

Im not sure to understand your comment here .  There are priorities and priority is to give to Russian TT something equal to other nations top tier tanks namely Leopard 2A5 , Leclerc  and upcoming M1A2 , if that implies skipping  some historically significant designs then so be it those designs can be added at a later date to fill the gaps

 

Point being I'm not going to fight Leopard 2A5s and M1A2 with  some  historically important BUT outdated meta-wise variant of the T-72 , T-80 , T-90 families for the sake of having historically significant designs being added fist  .... this is called masochism ! 

 

Note how German tree never got the predecessors of Leopard 2A4 so this is nothing new hence why i can't understand what you are on about  .

 

 

Can't argue with that .

Exactly. At this point they need t14 armata with fudged numbers to compete

 

m1 abrams > t80u 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.