BT-2 can replace BT5 as a more BALANCED reserve tank. BT-5 is one of the best reserves.
11 Likes
Also I would rather have the no MG turret, the off-setted mg will not be useful and it is triggering me, I do NOT like the manner it is placed.
BT-5 is at 1.0
the BT-7 has slightly worse mobility and is at 1.3
the BT-7M is having a bit better mobility and is a 2.0
all 3 tanks share the same ammo and almost the same armor. the difference in BR is mostly explained by the difference in skill of used when they get them
the BT-5 is a starting vehicle and a good share of the players who play it have no skill at all
the BT-7 is still early but the players have started to have a bit of skill
the BT-7M is still early but you probably already got familiar with the BT-5 and BT-7 by the time you get it
but they are essentially all alike in all aspects
no wonder you still see some BT-7 at rank 4 battles once in a while. those tanks are still capable of doing a frag once in a while and they are capable of outspending some MBT in certain occasions.
The BT-2 keeps the same protection and mobility but gives away the firepower to retain something that would just be capable of doing a minimum of acceptable damage. the gun remains better than the 37mm SA38 to me which is the first potent gun France has.
3 Likes
yeah, it looks annoying, but the LMG can eat some hits. I would keep it even if it can’t be used
I need to check but I believe it is mounted in a ball mount who can also turn left and right. maybe it can turn enough to be parallel to the 37mm
In that case, mg would be useful.
Higher top speed of 72 km/h would be welcome for higher tier battles.
1 Like
OR you can come to the conclusion that BT-7s are too high with the BR especially since the only difference is a slightly better mobility…
I mean comparing BT-5 with m8 LAC - LAC is pretty much better, comparing with Cruiser - practically the same tech, comparing with Stuarts - maybe a bit better but does not have stabs… Its pretty balanced at that point.
should i remind that 37mm at Stuarts does ~80mm of penetration with AP shots? As british 40mils?
This and a pre-war Pz II would make a good 1.0 team.
Pz II C and F moved from 1.0 to 1.3 and 1.7 and a lot of 1.0 tanks are just similiar effective and shouldn’t be 1.0.
Would be nice, if the US and GB also had some worse 1.0 vehicles because theirs are one of the best.
2 Likes
i would if it was not for the BT-5 faring well at the 2.0
the M8 LAC is another unbalanced vehicle. it’s not really the best reference
1 Like
I mean… 2.0 is pretty unbalanced to its guts. The Pz38T stands 2.0 without any proper reason, the M3 Lee is just one step further. Ect ect. I’ll just point out that 2.0 is M3A3 Stuart which is 100% better than BT-5 and/or BT-7, its the Crusader which is also much better, ect ect.
The BT is obviously better than H35 or the T-26, byt i doubt it is good enough to be higher than Cruisers and M13s.
If half of vehicles are unbalanced…
EDIT:
Some examples of unfairness:
examples
The 38T has less penetration, worse mobility, than:
the Stuart also has better armor (it may be a little less thicc but whistands more, plus totally better armored turret)
and then there is that guy:
with anormously good cannon for its rank
and that guy:
with good armor, cannon and decent mobility
I mean, its not that BT-5s much better than reserve m2 stuarts, the A13s, the M8, the Strv31s, tho its better than Pz35s, H35s (id prefer using the BT over something armoured Hotchkiss), the L3/33s, the Ha-Go`s (tho they are pretty decent i think). Id prefer that those got a decent tanks than cutting good tanks into less playable ones.
What are these little things in front of them? It also looks like it has tracks
BT-5 and 7 are indeed much better than any other tanks on their BR. This would certainly be an improvement. Some very also captured by Finnish, but they weren’t used.
+1. It would make reserve tier more enjoyable for players of other nations.
2 Likes
apparently the BT-5 also had the ability to use wheels instead of tracks would like to see it as a modification or a setting in the pre game menu
thos are T-27 tankette
1 Like
They’re still AP shells with no explosive filler, meaning much less damage than the soviet 45 mm.
5 Likes
So then, if you look at the 37mm BT-2 cannon, there is said that the AP shots there pen 40 and 45mm. For example, APHEs for the QF-2pdr - the Cruiser tank canon - do 50+mm of penetration, and the APs there do 80. Meaning that this cannon is obiously MUCH LESS powerful.
Compared to the A13 Cruiser, the Bt-2 features a much higher top speed (72 km/h vs 48 km/h), and higher hp/t (31,82 vs 24,6), meaning it’s significantly more mobile.
Other than that, it’s also smaller, making it a harder target to hit.
The 37 mm of the Bt-2 is enough to pen almost all 1.0-1.3 tanks with no problem.
The only exception are some of the french tanks, like the H.39, R.35, D.2 and S.35. Still, the AP shell would be able to pen them.
3 Likes
it IS a good point, but you must mention that turret rotation speed, vertical aim speed woud be worse. And it also has LESS crew members (twice less), which makes the turret rotation speed disadvantage fatal.
Thats just straight up a lie. BT is LONGER as it uses a Christi`s chassis, the hull length is bigger, the height is also bigger. The turret is smaller, tho with two crew members you dont really need to hit a turret.
And then its the 45 mil of penetration. Such a small pen means it would be USELESS against 1.7-2.0 tanks ( even the pz38 would whistand that shot). And again: cruisers posess the APHE with BETTER penetrarion YET given a second solid shot wth 80 penetration.
40 is just straight up not enough.
1 Like