I also have top tier Russia, which is exactly why I’ll pick the Abrams over the T-80BVM/T-90M every time I need to make that choice.
The T-80BVM is okay, although a bit limiting. There is no tank I hate playing more than the T-90M.
1 Like
Right… but I’m not gonna make arguments on an “I said versus you said” basis.
Win rates point to Russia having a significantly better time at top tier. Therefore, they clearly have a better lineup. Would they have a lesser win rate if it was PURELY ground and not with CAS included? Perhaps, but that’s a null and void argument if we’re discussing nations’ performances at top tier because they’re intrinsically linked right now and cannot be separated.
Also if we were to base this off of voiced community opinions, I’d wager there are complaints of “OP” on a scale of 10:1 on the BMPT versus all the Abrams collectively.
I’m currently having a 70% WR in my SEPv3 and I’m far from the only one.|
Let’s wait and see until statshark gives us the july statistics so that we can see how the SEPv3 affected the top tier US winrates.
We can wait, sure.
While we wait I’ll draw attention to the present stats on WT Data Project projecting the aforementioned ~57% W/R on Russia vs ~52% on US.
I’m glad we can agree that stats take time to adjust after changes though. With that in mind would you like to agree with me that saying the US is now thrashing with the Sep v3 may be due to an influx of higher-skilled players to the US who want to experience the new Abrams, as opposed to any actual buffs to the vehicles themselves?
It was it’s stock ammo, so I stead of ranting russian bias, take a look former dart
Ah yes, WT data project which uses thunderskill data no? the historically unreliable stats website?
1 Like
… it wasn’t though. The BVM had Mango as stock, and then Svinets-2 as a second unlockable round.
Reference - @ 01:29
1 Like
You’re definitely right, Thunderskill tracking is straight up awful, wish they tracked off of statshark…
You don’t address my question though.
1 Like
More pen = more spall.
My understanding is that spall is calculated off of mass (in form of kinetic energy transference through the round’s weight and speed), diameter and caliber as well as the material type hit. Not purely the penetration amount. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
M829 IS lighter than A2 by about half a kg. It’s only 10m/s slower. It has the same diameter. I haven’t noticed significantly more spalling with A2.
This might be coloured by the fact that A2 combats vehicles with spall liners significantly more than base M829 though so I’ll retract that point.
Residual penetration is the thing that matters.
1 Like
Very interesting. Thank you for correcting me.
Out of interest why does Gaijin use such a formula with long-rod darts but not their shorter cousins / APCR?
1 Like
No idea about that.
This formula is only applicable to long-rod darts fired from 76mm+ guns.
Autocannons have their own presets.
1 Like
Ngl thos mess of an update has me not wanting to play. Everyone I played with has stopped since this update and i was gonna grind it out in hopes things would get better, but… It doesnt.
1 Like
I think the Russian bias is already obvious to everyone.
They also use a different formula for apcr, they use jacob de Marre’ formula for apcr, they use the Lanz-Odermatt for apfsds
what do you expect
eh i would argue the 3bm42-2 is better than 3bm60 on t80s.
Probably it is, the .4s does come in handy
Did I just completely miss this round being added or what?