Jump to content
Quote

T-64B - Remove 3BM42, maybe add 3BM29 or 3BM32, perhaps move to 9.3.

 

Without 3BM-42 it's most definitely a 9.3.

Also, T-64A is a 9.0.

 

T-72A is also pretty close to being a 9.0.

 

Quote

T-72B Obr 89. - Move to 10.0 (from 9.7)

 

Then give it something to compensate for the up-tier.

Otherwise there's no reason why it shouldn't be at the same BR as the standard T-72B, there's virtually no difference between them.

 

Quote

Other nations can receive filler tanks like M1A1HA/HC, or proper Leo 2a4 C-tech/Leo 2a4 b-tech. But nerfing Soviets by taking their uniqueness is not the way.

 

Mostly just France and China seriously need more viable backups.

M1A1 could just be modified into a M1A1 HA and the Leo 2A4 can be modified into C tech.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TenPoundsOfSalt said:

You're unironically making a parallel between the Leclerc and the Challenger 2's hull ?

Both are comparable in term of LFP, as in, nonexistant, so far so good.

As you go up the LFP, you encounter the Leclerc's strongpoint, wich between the LFP and UFP, nothing goes trough that. On the Challenger, there's no such transition, you go from the butter LFP, to the strong UFP.

Said UFP is good for the Challenger, only the Ariete and the Leclerc can do something about it, other than that, it goes all the way to the turret, and create a decently strong face for the Challenger, with only the driver port to be a weakpoint.

On the Leclerc, the UFP is largest weakspot of the tank from the front that can result in an OHK reliably.

 

I think i found why the Leclerc got the OFL F1, beside the fact that you cannot limit it to HEATFS only, it's because it's armour coverage is **** poor, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And before this get spun into a "Challenger 2 better than Leclerc" piece. I find the Leclerc to be the superiour vehicle, but comparing the armour coverage, be it of the hull, or the whole tank, to the Challenger, makes for a ridiculous comparison.

What i'm saying is, that it's better to have some coverage of armour on the hull than none.

And those with pure butter hulls, are Usa, Germany, Japan and Italy.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

...........OK? I said T-90 (1992) not T-90A

Players were not asking for T90 Obr 1992, they asked for T90A Obr 2004. In simple terms, T90 Obr 1992 would have the exact same performance as a T72B Obr 1989 in game.

Edited by SXTREME
  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2020 at 22:08, watch_your_fire said:

What's so funny? Soviet top tier is pretty good, lots of nice lineups and fun tanks

 

Theres a difference between ..... being good or funny and this  previous claim of yours :

 

Quote

The thing is, top tier tanks is one of the few places the soviet tree actually excels.

 

Don't get me wrong nobody here is claiming top tier soviet are suffering ( that's a German speciality ) but saying they  '' Excel '' is pure bolocks !!!  In order to '' excel '' a tank needs to be on top of all characteristics namely armor , firepower/penetration , mobility , survivability .... so please go ahead and name a single top tier soviet tank that  '' excels '' ............

 

On 02/09/2020 at 22:08, watch_your_fire said:

and the T-90 is more interesting than the T-72B3 IMO, plus it would make more sense to limit it to BM42 since that's what it would have been issued in the 90s anyway

 

Wake up  dude , we are way past T-90 ........ anyone with the tiniest clue already knew T-90A is/was the bare minimum ...... that's the  funny part !

 

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Wake up  dude , we are way past T-90 ........ anyone with the tiniest clue already knew T-90A is/was the bare minimum ...... that's the  funny part !

 

And we are fast coming to the point, or are alredy past it, where even T-90A is too little too late.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

And we are fast coming to the point, or are alredy past it, where even T-90A is too little too late.

We're definitely already past it with the T-72B3 '16 added (filling the niche the T-90A would). I say we push on to the T-90M for Leo 2a6 and M1a2 SEP equivalence.

 

That said though, a T-90A with svinets-1 or -2 might be good enough considering the 2a6 appears to be just a 2a5 with a better gun and the SEP may or may not just have better LFP armor.

Edited by Ariesv
medal medal

Share this post


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

We're definitely already past it with the T-72B3 '16 added (filling the niche the T-90A would). I say we push on to the T-90M for Leo 2a6 and M1a2 SEP equivalence.

 

That said though, a T-90A with svinets-1 or -2 might be good enough considering the 2a6 appears to be just a 2a5 with a better gun and the SEP may more may not just have better LFP armor.

I agree with all of that. 

10.3 T-72B3 T-80U 1985 M1A1 M1IP Leopard 2A4 1987  
10.7 T-90A T-84 1999 M1A2 M1A1HA Leopard 2A5 Leopard 2 Evolution
11.0 T-90M Proryv T-84M Oplot M1A2 SEP M1A2 SEPv2 Leopard 2A6 Leopard 2 ATD
Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jackTIGR said:

 

And we are fast coming to the point, or are alredy past it, where even T-90A is too little too late.

 

With T-72B3 Obr.2016 for sure we already past this point . Right now considering Gaijin is going to move US and Germany to the next step in terms of MBTs  the only relevant T-90 is T-90M .

 

I simply hope it won't come 2 years after Leopard 2A6 / M1A2 SEPv2 if not at all like the  T-90A  .................

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western military district tank regiments such as the  2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division have already started to get equipped with T-90M , also worth noting on this photo 3rd tank on the right is a T-14 .

 

EVfC50EWkAQaGZu?format=jpg&name=medium

 

Now since this thread is called T-72B3 historical inaccuracy ,   i would like to bring the discussion back on topic  . T-72B3 obr.2016 ingame apears to still be using 4S22 fillers for the Kontakt-5 package on the UFP , this is inaccurate since according to official MoD requirement document 4S22 has been replaced with 4S23 in order to bring the UFP protection a bit closer to what fully fledged Relikt package would offer :

 

 

1982499229_4s23t-72b3.png.526df03d449217

 

Now i would gladly make a report about this but my issue is Gaijin is probably going to ask for the full document/page so can someone help me find it  ?

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/09/2020 at 15:07, UNIT_normal said:

It 'can' use 3BM59/60 but Russian still uses 3BM42 as main KE ammunition.

And if you have better tanks(T-90A, T-90MS, T-80BVM), would you give fancy rounds to cheap T-72B3?

https://lenta.ru/news/2020/01/18/lekalo/

In early 2020, Russian contracted company 'to replace' 3BM42 with 3BM44M 'Lamka'.

So 3BM42 is still active duty round for modern Russian MBTs.

Lekalo (3BM44M) still has 650mm pen same as Svinets 2 (3BM60) (Svinets-2 pen goes from 640-700) so what's your point? 3BM42 (Mango) is obsolete, 3BM44M (Lekalo) is not, so T-72B3 `16 still using Mango rounds is absurd if not give it the 3BM44M (Lekalo) or the 3BM46 (Svinets) but both rounds still have 650mm of pen. Svinets-1 (3BM59) however has 700mm+ because it's made of DU and I am not asking for 3BM59.

Edited by Leplivo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2020 at 15:42, Yedidya said:

I don't understand what makes you believe that Russia NEEDS Svinets-1...

There is not a single round, not even the CL3143, that can lolpen any tank everywhere. Every 10.7 tank turret is safe from even CL3143 unless you go for typical weakspots (I am talking about from the front at 500 meters). Those very same weakspots can be penetrated by even DM13s (Tier 1 Mod of the Leopard 2A4)

 

The majority of folks I have seen the past several days since the announcement of the T-72B3 Obr. 2016 who were demanding Svinets-1 were mostly players that only played Russia and had either a very bad win/loss ratio or actually a quite reasonable and close to average W/L ratio of that vehicle in Ground RB.

 

But what they all had in common was, the complaining about the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 being OP. But never even have played the damn tanks or perform ****-poor in them.

 

Ranking of the strongest rounds from top to bottom that are being used by the 10.7 tanks

 

CL3143 - 625mm @ 10m 0°

OFL 120 F1 - 575mm @ 10m 0°

M829 - 491mm @ 10m 0°

DM33 - 481mm @ 10m 0°

3BM42 - 479mm @ 10m 0°

 

So because of 2mm less penetration statswise you complain that the DM33 from the Strv 122 and 2A5 are OP? Not sure what is wrong with you tbh.

 

Russia's new lineup of MBTs

 

BR 9.7

T-72B, T-72B Obr 1989 (Kontakt-5 at this BR - LOL), T-64B(V) - all with access to 3BM42

BR 10.0

T-80B - all with access to 3BM42

BR 10.7

T-80U, T-72B3 Obr. 2011/2016 - all with access to 3BM42

 

So if you want, you can have 6 tanks in your top tier lineup all with a 3BM42; there is no other nation that can have such an extremely strong lineup ammunition wise at top tier starting from 9.7; that is in my humble opinion exactly what defines POWERCREEP. Additionally, people complaining "but USA CAS is so strong and their Premium Apache spam" ... all I have to say is this --> KA-50, KA-52, Mi-28N, MiG-21SMT, MiG-21F-13, Su-7B... all three jets have extremely powerful S24s, both Kamovs have Vikhrs - the most broken, OP and historically incorrect ATGMs in the game and the Mi-28N with Atakas that are extremely strong as well. Yes, USA has a good CAS lineup, but one of the strongest CAS airplanes they have is hiding behind a 300GJN price tag in the market place, because it was an eventvehicle (the FJ-4B VMF)

 

USA

BR 9.7

M60 AMBT (eventvehicle with KE-W round - 583mm @ 10m 0° - but laughable armor)

BR 10.0

M1 Abrams (M774 - 357mm @ 10m 0°), M1IP (M833 - 395mm @ 10m 0°)

BR 10.3

M1A1 (M829)

BR 10.7

M1A2 (M829)

 

Germany

BR 9.7

Leopard 2K - (DM13 - 393mm @ 10m 0°)

BR 10.0

Leopard 2A4 - (DM23 - 410mm @ 10m 0°)

BR 10.7

Leopard 2A5 - (DM33)

 

 

Italy

BR 9.7

Ariete (P) - (DM33)

BR 10.3

Ariete, Centauro MGS - all with access to CL3143 and DM33

BR 10.7

Ariete PSO (CL3143 + DM33)

Who said I want the Svinets-1 (3BM59) round, I want either Svinets (3BM46), Lekalo (3BM44M) or Svinets-2 (3BM60) all of these shells have similiar penetration values.

Share this post


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

Who said I want the Svinets-1 (3BM59) round, I want either Svinets (3BM46), Lekalo (3BM44M) or Svinets-2 (3BM60) all of these shells have similiar penetration values.

Lekalo AKA Mango-M penetrates less than BM60 (Svinets-2) since its designed to fit in unmodified T-72 type autoloaders whereas Svinets 1-2 require modifications allowing to fit these extended length projectiles. Mango-M. Below is an advertisement for Mango-M/Lekalo and Svinets-2

 

41426801_SvinetsyMangoM.thumb.jpg.218dd4

 

Summing it up, penetration at 2km 60º LOS:

Mango-M: 560mm

Svinets-2: 600mm

Svinets-1: 700mm

 

In addition these three rounds have "special features", being effective against 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5, Nozh, Erawa, FY-II, etc) and also other complex additional armor such as the wedges on Leopard 2. Lekalo/Mango-M is not being introduced into russian service but rather meant as an export for customers who don't want the extra cost of modifying the autoloaders in their T-72 tanks.

 

1994567126_MangoMspecifications.jpg.d488

medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Lekalo (3BM44M) still has 650mm pen same as Svinets 2 (3BM60) (Svinets-2 pen goes from 640-700) so what's your point? 3BM42 (Mango) is obsolete, 3BM44M (Lekalo) is not, so T-72B3 `16 still using Mango rounds is absurd if not give it the 3BM44M (Lekalo) or the 3BM46 (Svinets) but both rounds still have 650mm of pen. Svinets-1 (3BM59) however has 700mm+ because it's made of DU and I am not asking for 3BM59.

DM53 for 2A5, M829A1/A2 for M1s, DM53 for Strv 122, Type-10 for the Japanese with Type-10 APFSDS then. 

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really think any tanks need any new high pen shells currently as most nations are doing just fine, penetration wise. Remember that shells are used in a certain extent as a balancing factor so a tank not having its high pen shell means that its doing alright according to Gijain. Also from looking at footage and other forum posts from other people, the t72b3 is alright in is current state as it very capable at top tier , Not saying that its historically alright tho.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 06/09/2020 at 19:45, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Lekalo AKA Mango-M penetrates less than BM60 (Svinets-2) since its designed to fit in unmodified T-72 type autoloaders whereas Svinets 1-2 require modifications allowing to fit these extended length projectiles. Mango-M. Below is an advertisement for Mango-M/Lekalo and Svinets-2

 

41426801_SvinetsyMangoM.thumb.jpg.218dd4

 

Summing it up, penetration at 2km 60º LOS:

Mango-M: 560mm

Svinets-2: 600mm

Svinets-1: 700mm

 

In addition these three rounds have "special features", being effective against 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5, Nozh, Erawa, FY-II, etc) and also other complex additional armor such as the wedges on Leopard 2. Lekalo/Mango-M is not being introduced into russian service but rather meant as an export for customers who don't want the extra cost of modifying the autoloaders in their T-72 tanks.

 

1994567126_MangoMspecifications.jpg.d488

 

Screenshot_3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Whats your point?

Ignore that reply I was tired and confused (night shift), also the 2A46M-5 has an upgraded autoloader, better FCS etc. the whole purpose of the 2A46M-5 besides better FCS is that it can fire the newest ammunition. T-72B3 and T-90M fire the 3BM59 (Svinets-1), 3BM60 (Svinets-2) and the Refleks ATGM.Screenshot_4.png.e44ca26d1ce0e6096cdb987

 2A82/2A82-1M fire the 3BM69 (Vacuum-1) and 3BM70 (Vacuum-2) rounds. I honestly don't see how a tank from 2016 would fire an obsolete shell from the 80s, all modern Russian tanks use Lekalo, Svinets and Vacuum wich all have well above 600mm penetration of armor.

Edited by Leplivo

Share this post


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

I honestly don't see how a tank from 2016 would fire an obsolete shell from the 80s, all modern Russian tanks use Lekalo, Svinets and Vacuum wich all have well above 600mm penetration of armor.

As many have pointed out: Gaijin´s criteria for ammo selection for ALL vehicles is gameplay balance, not historical realism.  As for the last part of the sentence, only Svinets are being used in russian service: Lekalo is oriented to the export market (and from the available material it seems to be a shortened BM-60, penetrating a little bis less RHA but having anti ERA capabilities), on the other hand Vacuum is still a work in progress (perhaps its being reworked because of the unveiling of M1A2 SepV3), who knows how long it will be until it's finished and introduced into service.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becharita
Becharita gave Leplivo a warning for this post
Reason: Verbal Warning Only · Points: 0 ·
On 21/09/2020 at 19:03, Alan_Tovarishch said:

As many have pointed out: Gaijin´s criteria for ammo selection for ALL vehicles is gameplay balance, not historical realism.  As for the last part of the sentence, only Svinets are being used in russian service: Lekalo is oriented to the export market (and from the available material it seems to be a shortened BM-60, penetrating a little bis less RHA but having anti ERA capabilities), on the other hand Vacuum is still a work in progress (perhaps its being reworked because of the unveiling of M1A2 SepV3), who knows how long it will be until it's finished and introduced into service.

Balancing the game by adding obsolete shells and then nerfing them, buffing them or just giving them the correct values like the Italian bias shell with 625mm pen, seems like a very stupid way to balance a game. War Thunder is definitely not balanced because there are tanks that are way better than others, example: Germany, Italy and Sweden are full of braindead tanks (some players with US tanks also). For the inbalance in this game I blame the players because they want the game to be realistic and historically accurate but then they also want the game to be balanced (you can't have both). Gaijin should add ammo and vehicles that can compete with each other not some countries get very OP tanks and others get mediocre tanks same with shells some get OP shells and some get mediocre or useless shells. My point still stands for the shells, they are still being used by Russian tanks. Please give me the source of your information about the Vacuum shells being reworked.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...