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.
The armour and the internal setup factor imo. My shots don’t reliably pen BMPT like they do T90/T72, then all the additional internals are more RNG walls you have to get through to hope you strike something of import, and then tack on the fact FCS isn’t a universal standard across vehicles as some need it to fire their main armament, whereas others just lose accuracy/stabilizer lol, not the fault of the vehicle, just an additional annoyance.
The same people who say BMPT would struggle at top tier are also the same people who sit firing at the front of an STRV122 that’s been disabled vs going to the sides where you just aim under the skirt and it’s donezo, many games over the morning where BMPT players just keep firing for what felt like a minute and a half at me angled, busted, unable to retaliate, slamming ATGMS into my face instead of the LFP, waiting for the “Target destroyed”.
And these were the same annoyances perceived when the T-90M came out and when the T-80BVM came out.
I’m trying to figure out if there’s a genuine trend I should be following, or it’s the hull of the tanks people are complaining about.
I know back when the 80 was out, the main gripe was that there was no autoloader to damage and stun the reload, but when NATO vehicles loader got hit, that was enough to be a deciding factor.
If people were smart honestly, they’d shoot the same spot that the Relikt on the ufp stopped the 1st time depending on the situation, as everything at top tier goes through the ufps if Relikt isn’t there, or if you’re a 1 in a million and slip through the armor holes between them.
I’ll try my best to collect more clips of BMPT and T72/T90 side shots to find consistencies, won’t say it’ll be easy but since RU is all I ever fight even in mixed teams where they seem like 80% of the comp, I should have multiple opportunities.
Can’t say I’ve ever had this happen, only time I UFP T series is during snipes, but I just assumed given the distance the dart was able to angle down enough to outright pen it.
You often dont have that much time. You get deleted by this garbage before you reload.
Definetly do that!! I’d love to see actually, I always collect clips where I can because these nuances I believe have been shown through all the hulls.
Only real changer is that the BMPT-72 doesnt get bag era on the sides and the T-72B3 doesnt have Relikt on it’s ufp.
They both retain the internal fuel behind the ammo which does set of the ammo in both vehicles if they explode.
So you’re implying that because it doesn’t have a cannon to reload, and that it has an autocannon, you have less room for error.
Sort of like how the 2s38, Hstvl have that ability as people fluke shots against those vehicles all the time and get annihilated by them
(Just for comparison) or the BMP-2m since it has APFSDS mind you and better atgms, just the lack of armor across all 3
2s38 dies from a single shot. On the other hand, the garbage often needs 5+.
That should be obvious since it’s on a tank hull with an autocannon, there’s not really much to diffrentiate.
When it’s a tank hull with a single shot cannon it’s less antagonizing yes.
My point is that all rank 7-8 tanks can be consistently one-shot with a well-placed HE shot to the roof - except for the BMPT. This effectively makes it indestructible (no exaggeration here) when it’s hull-down. Granted, some tanks require more precise aiming, but it’s still a reliable kill if you know the specific weak spots to aim for.
That said, I’m not sure if I correctly interpreted your message.
Remind me if this is the case for the Merkava 4 and Namer
I don’t have problems when facing any of them. The BMPT garbage should go.
Because those tanks have no concept of armor, which is why they aren’t played and when you do see them they aren’t a problem, or never could be.
Like I said, people want the BMPT gone but are asking for more advanced tanks, not sure what the verdict is here. BMPT is just a tank with an autocannon on top that’s really it.
Next up when a NATO tank gets added with some 140mm gun, are we gonna start the same cycle over again?
Look, this garbage is now breaking the 11.3 bracket. I don’t care what and when will be added and with which parameters. I do care about the BS that is happening right now.
