This isn’t consistent amongst most other tanks, so I’m not seeing the point here. Esepcially those that take direct Artillery hits to the roof
They could fix it by lower TKX/Type 10 BR or at least fix their armour and gun handling along with the acceleration. But they didn’t so there that. Basically nothing was done to make japan a worth grinding or even playing nation. Or maybe just give them SK vehicle , K2 would make a good addition but no we getting Oplot and thai vehicle, on paper it seem nice but still extremely meh over all.
TKX/Type 10 are still good vehicle don’t get me wrong but it skill floor has been raised significantly if you want to actually do good due to all the bs other nation get. People could just go for France instead cause MICA are still very strong and the Leclerc are basically the same if not better.
My point still stand , people really does not want to play SPAA unless it is a necessary. That the point.
They been doing this for a while , we got a good amount of premium are undertier but since they are premium nothing being done about it. They tried to pull the same thing with BMPT and expect the playerbase to suck it up but it turned out that doing so broke the 9.3-11.3 br range for a good while.
That’s what people said when the Pantisr S-1 came out, and everyone questioned why other nations don’t get an equivalent.
That was solely the playerbase not understanding that no other NATO nation has a mobile air defense system like the Pant sir, and it even when it came out, people started to slowly laugh off how “easy” it was too defeat.
Like with the Terminator, only some nations have specialized vehicles for special roles.
The only thing the U.S has in terms of competing with the Pantsir is basically humvees with stinger and Stryker’s with stingers and hellfires lol. (on a actual mobile platform)
I find hard to believe that the US, the nation with the most important military budget wordwide, by far, cannot compete with the russian military.
As well as other occidental nations, which have generally a much higher GDP than Russia.
EDIT : even though Russia allocates 35% of its GDP in the army, while the US and other occidental nations only 3%, the absolute value, in USD, between occident nations spendings and russian spendings is nowhere near.
1 Like
U.S is more oriented on static defense systems, but their main strength is air superiority, so the need for devoloping a mobile defense system equivalent to Russias wasn’t neccessary.
Russia has such systems in place because achieving air dominance is unlikely in their situation.
Also why do you think so many nations got S.A.M systems and nothing like the Pantsir S-1, because if you look, they legitimately don’t have anything like it
So then add the IM-SHORAD. :D (I don’t even play US.)
They can, it just won’t be a Pantsir, and the Pantsir was designed to defend the Actual SAM systems, so it will suffer the same fate of being overwhelmed by munitions.
And I don’t think the Stingers themselves were meant to intercept munitions in the first place, just low flying drone targets.
and that is why us has bad missiles and nerfed airforce in this game right?
To keep on track with the whole BMPT/72 topic, I do want to note that the T-90 uses the exact same hull and interior layout with just some slight difference of not having a power system module and different (but similar) ammo layout.
This first clip here is the T-72B3A and it’s using basically the same layout as the BMPT/72
I see a LOT of clips showing angled shots and then some screeching about the armor when this is M900 against Relikt at an angle doing it’s job on a completely different chassis.
us got a good air tree what are you talking about. yes they dont have shorad and small sam like the tor or pantsir.
He means Stingers getting nerfed across the board some time ago.
Strela doesn’t count since it’s technically a large IR SAM system with different tracking techniques.
oh yeah thats on gaijin
The Black Panther? I imagine it was just easier for them to add the Oplot since it’s of RU design/inspiration and uses the duplet composite/ERA, whereas the K2 has so much more technology behind it, meaning if anything they’ll hold off on adding it so JP can get something when everyone gets 5-9 more additions. Just the reality of JPs self-limiting armoury, though I imagine that’s due to what I assume is more a shore defense/home territory doctrine vs intercontinental ventures. I was sad that the Leclerc got our one major strength in the 4 sec RoF autoloader, but we still have hydropneumatic suspension which allows us to be trollier on hill cresting lol.
Me sighing in frustration when first spawn has 2-3 SPAA, and I know I’ll still eventually get LMUR’d/KH38/29T.
The T2 is a carbon copy of the tech tree version, wouldn’t even give it the gun lead it had back when TT T2 was “OP” because of it, P-F2 is worse than TT variant with gods awful AIM-7Ms… P-Type 16 has a worse APFSDS dart than the TT version, I don’t own the “Red Star” type 74, but I assume because it’s in JP it’s mid at best, doesn’t even get APFSDS. P-BMPT is suffers from the fatal RU 3-crew setup, and is less bulked up like the TT version but still just as annoying regardless.
Another contribution from Russian developers to the poor Russian tree. I’m very saddened to see these efforts.
Here is another clip mind you of the T-80BVM and Oplot shoing low results after being shot directly at the side from range.
This is just to give some light that these are very similar chassis (similar setups) produing similar trolly results.
With context here, the X-ray gives a very bad illusion on the 1st vehicle that nothing is happening, when in reality that side shot hit parts of the ufp and that is why it got stopped.
Here’s even more footage of equal performance of the T-90M hull armor.
It genuinely confuses me why the playerbase is blaming the vehicle when all these tanks use the same hull, the difference being layout or the inclusion of spall liner.
It feels like T-90M syndrome when the vehicle first came out and people over-exaggerated it’s protection.
The P-BMPT is the same layout, the TT version is most certainly not, the additional crew aside it’s got those extra fuel tanks behind the left and right crewmember, meaning another chance to make the round do absolutely nothing but blow up some fuel or get voided for whatever reason, like how the RU trunnion is for whatever reason made out of Uru (Asgardian metal). Beyond that even with the model being the same as the previous T series, why is the BMPT far more inconsistent in damage received? It’s easier to deal with T90s because 1 barrel which is the most obvious aspects, but even if we discount that the BMPT has oddly more survivability than the T72B3 or T90 itself.
Idk maybe because it faced 9.3 tanks. Just a guess tho
The crew on the tech tree version is the 1 obvious factor, nothing you can really do about that, as some IFVS have the same multicrew layout, and if there was a proposal to yank them out. It’d be pulling a double-standard of equivalent vehicles.
The fuel tanks on the BMPT as I recall are mostly external except for the ones internally surrounded by armor. Most fuel tank explosion kills on the T-90s or 80s is if there’s already ammo stowed in the fuel, or on the T-80 specifically, the fuel at the rear of the tank directly behind the autoloader sets it off from the explosion.
And you might of just stated exactly what it is, being that it feels easier to deal witht he T-90s since they have a huge barrel you can disable, then pick off what you want, but this vehicle doesn’t have such a setup, makiing immobilization not an immediate option.
And if that’s the case, then it’s nothing to do with the armor, but what players are used to do doing when dealing with certain types of vehicles.
Might I also add that the external Relikt it gets is nothing different than what it uses all over the tank, but Gaijin did not give it’s KE performance, most likely in anticiaption of people having complaints about that.
Especially since it’s situated in an array that’s common on the front of the turrets of those tanks. So it’s not like it’s “flat” it’s angled where it would be more effective, not that it matters.
I’m only saying that because people say the KE of ERA is a flat value and doesn’t change based on angle, even though I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, I could be wrong.
I understand that, but it’s moved up in BR and now I’m looking at it from a perspective of top-tier and nothing to do with that lower br range, and the whole controversy with the T-series hulls in generals.
This vehicle just exacerbated the “issue” further.