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.
Do you even check your facts?
The A13 is not a demon when it comes to turret rotation and elevation speeds.
It has only 1 crew member less (3 vs 4), so not 2x times less.
Again, you are guessing stuff.
The A13 is longer (6 m vs 5,5 m), wider (2,54 m vs 2,23 m) and higher (2,59 m vs 2,17 m).
It can still flank the tanks you mentioned, being much more mobile.
…
4 Crew members - a reserve A13.
And its turret rotation is QUITE better than a BT-5s, so i suggest its better than a BT-2s anyways.
If i rememer right, the A13s rotation speed can be up to 16 or 18, and the BTs less than 10.
Ingame model does not agree with you. And the mobility is quiet biased with you:
“flanking” would be the only option of using BT-2s, not so “balanced” if you ask me.
The BT-5s pretty much balanced on its own rn. Nerfing USSR reserves does not look necessary to me.
Maybe. Thy, when the French reserves showed incompetence, we just gave them a better ones. We did not degrade M2s, BTs and others to the R35 37mm state.
turns out i had unintentionally nerfed the gun’s performance.
it appears I had unintentionally kept the performance of the PS-1 or PS-37 gun
I adjusted the gun with the proper velocity after having double-checked the sources. the AP round was removed. the APHE gains a fair buff now reaching 55mm at point blank and 35mm at 500m.
The BT-5 is definitely not balanced. It’s overpowered at 1.0, just like the M8 greyhound.
Both are the only reserves that often get picked by players at higher tier, and are able to score kills.
The BT-5 is certainly 1.3 material but the A13 could easily be 1.7. The M8 should 2.0 considering the German Sd. Kfz 222 is 2.0 and they are both scout cars with somewhat similiar capabilities.
1.0 = Pretty meh. Some advantages some disadvantages
1.3 = Better. Some pretty good advantages but also some drawbacks
1.7 = Major advantages over 1.0
2.0 = Can eat anything below for breakfast
Do you know which tanks are also regularey picked up by the players to get the top tier frags?.. right, the M22 Locust and the Sturmpanzer 2! And nowadays people often pick sweden 150mm mortar also. Thy the Sturmpanzer now has 1.0, and the Sweden is 1.7, which - according to you - does not make any sense as Sturmpanzer is often picked but GOT, not even has, lower BR.
That has literally nothing to do with how the tanks perform at their own br, literally.
Amd i never saw ANY M8 LAC at top tiers, because all her good sights work only against rank 1 vehicles. The reason people bring BTs to top tier is that it moves as fast as MBT thy they can obtain a free airspawn.
Thy brings the question.
We have:BT5 strong as M8 lac strong as A13 strong as Strv m31 strong as M2 Stuart. Thy loosers here are germans with early Pz3 (which can be fast replaced with Pz2s or pz4), frenches (as the Hotchikiss with 2 tankers can never be good), italy (Thy they have GOOD reserves, as the M13s are literally pz3j but slower), and Japs (tho the Ha-Gos arent that bad, them are worse than others).
Why should then Soviets get the BT-2, if most of the enemies are okay at performance?
And why not juat give better performing tanks to germans and frenches as reserves? (Tho there is pretty much nothing you can do to give french something)
And as always…
…the game provides ppl with promo links which now give an entire premium machinery lineup: plane, tank and a ship. And thy provide with good enough machines to grimd tier 1 and never come back.
Even if thats so, i think the Gaijin would search their own docs to get the gun as they want, so its just close data. 55 is straight up Cruiser`s APHE, but without AP dealing 80 penetration as i can now see.
I see you do not know well how Gaijin works.
they mean no bad intention, but there are a lot of vehicles that is just badly sourced, and the data is incorrect or wrong. some bug reports date as far as 5-6 years and still haven’t been corrected despite the primary sources.
we are working directly with Gaijin’s team to provide those documents. it’s not always easy but it’s not their own documents they use, but mostly the communities who provide it.
you know, it’s not because some other vehicles have balancing issue that mean we can’t fix one. the M22 is mainly used in the higher tier because it’s very mobile and very small. but it’s not that effective in high tier. people use it mostly because you can farm money as you get 5000 SL for each frag and lose very little to repair it. it is also capable of capturing the zone fast and hiding easily. but the firepower is not that effective.
for me, you just seem to seek excuses to not lose the BT-5 at a so low BR. but I didn’t hear any good reason not to raise it. i can still fair well with the BT-5 at 4.0 which is not normal. i score 2-3 frag almost every time I take it out. you can’t tell me this vehicle belongs to 1.0 that is clear to me and the fact speak for themself. it’s barely worse than the BT-7M and slightly better than the BT-7
I still disagree. The BT-5 is definitely better than the other reserves. Faster, a gun that’s good enough even for a 2.0 tank.
The BT-2 would be more balanced.
i think i said pretty clear that it is in balance as there are Stuart and A13 with stabs and similar mobility, the swedens with APDSes at 1.0, and the china with the M8. I dont really see how the M8 can be as high as M3 (late) Stuart as it performs better at 1.0 exclusively because M2 mount.
the fact that any of 1.0 i named can do the same as their “improved” versions share the same armanment AND have proper mobility to flank? Okay. The italian M13 has better cannon and armor, for a 1.0-1.3 it is obviously a great machine which performs well as the BT or Stuarts, but at higher rank it becomes bad exactly because it cant flank due to low mobility.
The point is: its nothing in particular strange that MOBILE machine can - with some changes of playstyle - operate at higher BR. The M18 is also used with same intentions, the R3T20 does aswell. Does not mean they should be higher of the BR they are.
which are too high of the br without proper reason why compared to BT-5 And/or A13
the BT-2 is more NERFED without any proper reason. I didnt see that the soviets somehow outperform everyone at rank 1 looking at statistics. Moreover most skillfull players tend to choose PZ2 or Pansardbils or how are they called to ruin newbies`s day at low tier - because autocannon just performs better at that rank. So i dont really see any reason to somehow move BT-5 as the only reason for that - “well it can perform better than others at higher rank AND germany suffers with pz3s”
