Mr_Biggs91905

Another Premium Soviet Tank to slide in or replace the T-55AM-1 to better compete with the devastating XM-1 and other tanks around its BR

I have been playing the T-55AM-1 for a while now and it seems to be no match for the XM-1 and similar tanks around its BR(8.7). It lacks turret rotation speed and driving Speed. I think they should add another Soviet Premium tank around the BR 8.7-9.3 to better compete with its competitors. I’m a reasonably new player to War Thunder and have heard “Russian Bias” but its more like “American Bias” ATM. (I don’t mean anything negative by it). I’m not a tank expert but I think they can add another premium soviet tank around this BR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perfect one would be Object 219, the prototype/first production model of T-80. Basically a T-80 with the armor array of T-64A. Production was extremely limited since by 1976 (year of production) the armor was super obsolete and was quickly replaced by T-80B.

TBH its a 9.3-9.7 tank (which is the BR that XM-1 should have always been!!). I like that it being premium would mirror the situation of TT M1 and premium XM-1.

 

If you are looking for a 8.7 tank, then IMO the Tiran 67Sh would do nicely. It´s an israeli overhauled T-62 (mirroring the americans with the Magach and the brits with the Shot Kal Dalet) featuring 105mm gun, the engine transmission of Shot Kal Dalet and Blazer ERA.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Object 219 is a good choice since it can match the XM-1's speed, but I don't think it is an 8.7 tank and the proper solution to the XM-1 dominating 8.7 tanks is to move the XM-1 up, not to give the Soviet TT an equivalent. Instead, I propose the Object 432, the original T-64 (the one with the 115mm gun) as an 8.7 tank.

 

object-432-image04.jpg

 

  1. Unlike a T-64A, this only gets a 115m gun which is a perfect balancing factor that justifies its placement at 8.7, and its ammo selection can be the same as the T-62M-1 or even limited to the T-62's ammo choices if necessary for balancing. Personally I think it should start with the same ammo as the T-62 but get the 3BM21 (stock shell for the T-62M-1) as its top shell. Plus it will have the standard HE and HEAT like the T-62. It shouldn't get missiles like the T-62M-1 though, which is another balancing factor that keeps it at 8.7.   
  2. Its hull armor is the same as the T-64A and its turret armor is effectively the same, or at least similar to the T-55AM-1 and T-62M-1. IRL the composite armor of the turret had some issues with multi-hit capability since hits by AP shells would create large voids in the aluminium filler, but that's irrelevant to WT.
  3. Its mobility is a bit better than the T-64A since it's lighter (only 34 tons) but has the same engine. So it's hp/ton ratio is 20.58. That's better than the T-64A (18.42 hp/ton) and the T-72A (18.8 hp/ton) but not as extreme as the Object 219, yet good enough to compete with Leopard 1s (20.75 hp/ton). Again, this justifies its placement at 8.7.
  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to consider the fact that Gaijin definitely wouldn't put either Obj 219 or Obj 432 at 8.7 or even 9.0. 432 would be miserably sitting at 9.3 with it's production brother, getting dragged into 10.3 battles 80% of the time and being just a waste of money and a paperweight in the tree.

 

About XM-1... that thing should really be 9.7 and US should fragging stop getting top tier tanks (like 2 new ones this month - M60A3 and Merkava 2), they have the best tree already.

 

Personally I think a premium T-80 proto or an advanced version of a foreign T-72 (Yugo M84 or Czech Scarab) would be best. Yes, they would have higher BR than 8.7; but they would hopefully be more competitive at their BR.

 

Essentially though, USSR badly needs fast vehicles that are competitive at their BR's (that means more rationally and fairly placed than the BS of 685 and BMP-3) and of course not constantly getting nerfed by Gaijin out of fear they will be accused of Russian Bias if they make a Russian vehicle as anything other but a hapless practice target.

 

If they somehow managed to do that (would probably happen sooner by accident than by intent when it comes to Gaijin) they will actually get some money from me again.

Edited by jackTIGR
  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2019 at 09:06, Flavettes said:

The Object 219 is a good choice since it can match the XM-1's speed, but I don't think it is an 8.7 tank and the proper solution to the XM-1 dominating 8.7 tanks is to move the XM-1 up, not to give the Soviet TT an equivalent. Instead, I propose the Object 432, the original T-64 (the one with the 115mm gun) as an 8.7 tank.

 

object-432-image04.jpg

 

  1. Unlike a T-64A, this only gets a 115m gun which is a perfect balancing factor that justifies its placement at 8.7, and its ammo selection can be the same as the T-62M-1 or even limited to the T-62's ammo choices if necessary for balancing. Personally I think it should start with the same ammo as the T-62 but get the 3BM21 (stock shell for the T-62M-1) as its top shell. Plus it will have the standard HE and HEAT like the T-62. It shouldn't get missiles like the T-62M-1 though, which is another balancing factor that keeps it at 8.7.   
  2. Its hull armor is the same as the T-64A and its turret armor is effectively the same, or at least similar to the T-55AM-1 and T-62M-1. IRL the composite armor of the turret had some issues with multi-hit capability since hits by AP shells would create large voids in the aluminium filler, but that's irrelevant to WT.
  3. Its mobility is a bit better than the T-64A since it's lighter (only 34 tons) but has the same engine. So it's hp/ton ratio is 20.58. That's better than the T-64A (18.42 hp/ton) and the T-72A (18.8 hp/ton) but not as extreme as the Object 219, yet good enough to compete with Leopard 1s (20.75 hp/ton). Again, this justifies its placement at 8.7.

 

1.) The 2A21 (D-68) cannon of the T-64 uses separate* rounds due to the mechanised loading, while the manually loaded 2A20 (U-5TS) of the T-62 uses unitary* rounds. Therefore ammunition is not interchangeable. The 2A21 had only one APFSDS shell (and two types of rounds with it, using different charges) during its service life - the 3BM5, which is analogous to the 3BM4 (full-steel body, no penetrator core).

 

* - Using the Russian terms here, cannot recall the proper English equivalents ATM.

 

2.) The problems with armor layer separation after multiple hits were with the high-hardness steel filler on the early T-64As (but not the earliest, which still used aluminum filler), which caused the limited production run of the turrets with this type of composite material (approximately 1970 to 1972, IIRC) and return to aluminum filler untill the introduction of the ultraporcellain balls around 1975.

 

3.) The actual standardized mass of the production T-64 (obj. 432) is 36 tons (with +2% allowable variation), resulting in a 19.4 hp/t ratio (in practice would probably not be noticeably different from the T-64A and T-72A).

 

In my opinion, the original T-64 should be in the regular tree as a mass-produced vehicle - over 1000 units were built. The premium alternative could be the object 003 - T-64 with the experimental 800 hp GTD-3TL gas turbine engine (derived from the helicopter GTD-3 engine), which would give it a 22.2 hp/t ratio:

 

5swFp.jpg

 

gOh5U.jpg

Edited by Krasnoarmeyets
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Rank VI premiums are not 1:1 examples. We dont add them to be direct counterparts to each other as otherwise, we would be going in circles as there will always be 1-2 objectively "better" tanks. 

 

The T-55AM-1 is a more than capable tank. It does not have the same BR as the XM-1 for the very reason indicating its not a 1:1 example. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 It does not have the same BR as the XM-1 for the very reason indicating its not a 1:1 example. 

 

But it does have the same BR as the Leopard 1 L/44, AMX-30 SUPER & Type 74G, dispite them not being 1:1 examples either )))))))))))

  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2019 at 21:26, Alan_Tovarishch said:

If you are looking for a 8.7 tank, then IMO the Tiran 67Sh would do nicely. It´s an israeli overhauled T-62 (mirroring the americans with the Magach and the brits with the Shot Kal Dalet) featuring 105mm gun, the engine transmission of Shot Kal Dalet and Blazer ERA.

 

But going from the 115-mm smoothbore U-5TS to 105-mm rifled L7/M68 would be a downgrade (if we are talking about rounds of the comparable era that were used by the Israelis) - the Israelis did it to standardize ammunition stocks. And Soviet T-62s also had ERA in the T-62MV variants (although, as a mass-upgraded vehicle, this should also go in the regular tree, perhaps as a module option for T-62M-1). And Israel by that time was very much not an ally of USSR, so seeing a vehicle with Israeli flag in the USSR tree would be quite weird. :)

 

Another interesting vehicle for potential premium option in 8.7 range is the object 166TM - this vehicle had the turret and hull (except the rear engine and transmission section) of the production T-62 (obj. 166), but with the improved and lighter 6-wheel chassis of the object 167 tank (which would later be used on the T-72) and the 800 hp GTD-3TU gas turbine engine. That would give it about 21.8 hp/t power to weight ratio and smoother ride than T-62. Additionaly, in 1967 the original 115-mm U-5TS was replaced by 125-mm D-81 (2A26M2 version) with the AZ-type autoloader (which again would later be used on the T-72 series). Therefore we would have the vehicle with firepower of T-64A, armor of T-62 and better mobility than both. Roughly analogous to Leopard 1A1A1/L44, but without LRF and thermal imager. Here are some photos, but that is prior to D-81 installation I believe:

 

object-166tm.jpg

 

015.jpg

Edited by Krasnoarmeyets
  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last one looks good, it has mobility and firepower, but the issue is that pretty much every enemy tank you meet at this BR in any significant number has thermals and these are a game changer.

 

They are basically like a legalised wallhack, a legal cheat. USSR is already pitter-pattering behind other nations as it is, what good would yet another inferior tank be? Other nations have thermals starting with 8.0, pretty much all other nations except China have thermals at 8.3. T-72A has no thermals for example at 9.3, spot where every single enemy MBT has them... And the fact is that USSR is practically the only nation that can be matchmaked to face a coalition on it's own and that with inferior vehicle. Even Germany has Italy as backup. This situation is just ridiculous. Only a few Soviet vehicles have thermals and the only MBTs are 10.0 or 10.3 and they require to unlock NVDs first, which no other nation needs to.

 

There only 2 lower vehicles that have thermals and are light vehicles that were either nerfed at launch and keep getting nerfed or made unfavourable to play (repair costs, RP grind, BR position, reload nerfs, etc.) like BMP-3 or like Shturm are pretty much duds, plus are still bugged (the missiles keeps falling off the launcher arm sometimes instead of launching), plus has really stupid grind and is tiered higher than HOT that is MUCH better. And to make matters worse they recently removed the "battle" gear that was the only way to keep the launcher outside and be able to move, now you put it in first gear and you're doomed to having to wait 10 seconds for the launcher to extend again - which is unrealistic and unhistoric btw. it should take 1.5 seconds.

 

Lack of thermals is another reason why USSR is doing so badly in top tier - they can see us and kill us easily when we don't even have any idea that they're there - especially acute in bad weather and fog. We seriously need thermals on a 8.7 or higher tank, not to mention on a premium tank. Gaijin should work on bridging the tech gap between USSR and NATO, instead of widening it (which means also giving USSR jet CAS, cas planes with AGMs, more tanks with thermals and good mobility, PTABs, SPAA 4.7-8.0, etc.).

Edited by jackTIGR
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2019 at 11:57, jackTIGR said:

 

About XM-1... that thing should really be 9.7 and US should fragging stop getting top tier tanks (like 2 new ones this month - M60A3 and Merkava 2), they have the best tree already.

 

 

 

I agree with you that the Americans have the best gear (even the powercreeped OG Abrams and IPM1 are still very good IMO), but I think adding tanks like the M60A3 and Merkava actually are doing other nations a favor by diluting and weakening the US, LOL. They're just a waste of time and RP/SL for people who would be better off researching and playing M1 tanks at 10.0 than these things at 9.3 IMO.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.