Fair enough.
Why does it not make sense? I mean people complain about reload rate and oftentimes the counter to those complaints is talking about whether or not a poor-reload-rate tank has an exceptionally good round. I’m just putting the two together in a ratio so it’s more rigorous than just saying “but it has a worse reload/but it has a better round” without mentioning numbers.
sorry but it just doesnt make sense.
pens more per second? I mean maybe if we were talking about drills and such where the amout “penetrated” or drilled at least somehow directly depends on how long you were drilling, but that does not apply to tanks.
you fire shell and that shell penetrates set amount of armor that, generally speaking, varies on angle and distance (ignoring stuff like difference between chemical and kinetic, type of projectile, the actual protection and composition of the targets armor) and so on.
30mm GAU-8 found on the A-10 would, by your logic, penetrate …
4200 rounds per minute / 60 seconds = 70 rounds per second * 79mm@10m@0°pen of in-game APCRT ammo it fires = 5530mm of armor per second, allowing it to frontally pen any tank in the game several times over.
but that isnt the case, is it?
2 Likes
No, but if anything that just makes my point stronger because the 292 can straight up frontally pen anything in the game while penetrating more millimeters of armor in a second than the other Russian tanks at 10.0. And I never mentioned rounds with less than 400mm of pen, obviously it’s not going to do damage on most stuff at top tier.
again, you do you buddy.
If you wanna keep using that formula of yours, you are free to do so.
I just don’t really get why you think it’s invalid. People do comparisons between tanks using their reloads and penetration values, I’m just doing it with numbers and more objectivity.
again, applying YOUR VERY OWN LOGIC onto other weapons present in game - because, if your own logic is as objective as you say, it can be applied to any gun regardles of caliber or vehicle it is mounted on - we arrive at things like GAU-8 penetrating 5530mm of armor per second.
Which simply isnt correct and it also tells you nothing about capabilites of GAU-8.
this would be reductio ad absurdum, form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition, by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction.
1 Like
By comparing a round with better base pen while also having a better pen/sec ratio, I’m not falling into the trap you’re describing.
GAU-8 → High pen/sec, but can’t pen all (or even most) armor
10.0 Russian Tanks → High pen/sec (for tank rounds/APFSDS, not MG’s or rotary cannons), can pen most armor in the game
Obj 292 → Even higher pen/sec than other 10.0 Russian tanks, while penning all armor in the game
I agree I should have said I wasn’t including things like MG’s or rotary cannons, but I was doing comparisons on similar rounds - like only looking at the APFSDS of similar classes of tank (i.e. not including fast-firing autocannon light tanks like the BMP’s or HSTV-L).
i see what we are on.
have a nice day, and i do hope you will publicly use this logic of yours more.
1 Like
What a load of crap you’re writing. Have you tried using your formula for other tanks? Cv90105 is 81.6 mm per second. Turkish M60 87.3mm per second.
I don’t know who came up with this nonsense formula, but you could have checked other tanks to realize that it’s complete crap and by it many other tanks are better than 292
1 Like
I’m going to piss off a lot of you with this, so if you don’t want to be triggered, deal with it and just don’t pay attention to what I have to say.
So long as the Object 292 is going to be treated as a prototype without even first-generation thermals (which it was slated to receive at the time of its production), then it cannot and should not be raised in BR above 10.0
Yes, it terrifies me to think of facing this thing if I’m a newbie player who doesn’t read maps, doesn’t understand maps, can’t scan, can’t react fast enough, and ultimately is just skill issuing and needs a lot more familiarization and crew skills to make up for their lack.
However, as a veteran and as a gamer, I can see this thing getting absolutely curbstomped if it goes into a uptier against 11.0s, much less 11.3 or 11.7.
And before you all say “it has night vision”, night vision is noticeably horrific for scanning at night, because it is reliant on ambient light alone, and requires that a target being moving, because that’s what the human mark 1 eyeball does, is track movement first. In a monotone color scheme, the brightness of thermals makes up hugely, whereas night vision just lets you see your surroundings more clearly. It does not protect you from seeing an enemy who can maximize bushes (PS: why are bushes still a thing) and concealment and shadows to their advantage to pop you.
Furthermore, that 10-second reload is a killer. If it doesn’t pop you in one shot, and you get even one chance with your breech to return fire, you will be able to pop that very large 152mm snout and make the player’s life hell.
And lastly, anyone saying, “I’ll just reverse”. It’s a T-series. It doesn’t reverse like a Western or Japanese or Korean design, flatout.
1 Like
It’s just something I’ve made up to use for comparing the gun performance of similarly-classed tanks. The issue is that while there are tanks with better ratios, there are still tanks with worse ones in the Russian tech tree at higher BR’s.
The thing can pen any armor in the game right now, yet it can do more damage per second than all of the 10.0 T-72B’s and the 10.3 T-80B. The first time it is outclassed is at 10.7, so at the very least it should go there due to its high pen.
That’s without looking at it’s armor, which is comparable to the 10.7 T-90A, so it should then go to 11.0.
At 11.0 most tanks will be able to pen it easily, finally making it a glass cannon like it should be. The increased mobility of the 292 compared to most of the T-72 line might make it worthy of moving up to 11.3 though (at least I personally would move it there for that reason).
Guess you technically got me with this, I said in an earlier comment “And I never mentioned rounds with less than 400mm of pen,” but you really going to mention a tank with its best round being 408mm, only 8mm more than the offhand comment of a limit I mentioned lol?
Additionally, I guess you didn’t read the part where I said “I was doing comparisons on similar rounds - like only looking at the APFSDS of similar classes of tank (i.e. not including fast-firing autocannon light tanks like the BMP’s or HSTV-L).”
This is true, and is actually a good use of my ratio. The issue is that the M60 AMBT is worse mainly because of non-gun related stuff like it majorly lacking armor (so it acts as a glass cannon at its BR, whereas the 292 needs to go to 11.0 minimum to have the same amount of vulnerability).
I mean it’s supposed to be a glass cannon, it should be able to be penned by the vast majority of things at its BR in addition to not having great maneuverability. It should be balanced like an artillery tank but using APFSDS, I mean why else add a tank with a million millimeters of pen if it should just be treated like any other MBT?
MONEY.
They just love to put event vehicles vehicles too low, so people have more reason to grind their life away or simply pay gaijin to get it.
Ok so wtf are you going to do with any 9.0 against this thing?
Good luck facing it in Leo A1A1 with DM23…
PS. You aren’t a veteran.
It’s much worse than T-90A’s armour.
1 Like
i wouldn’t say “much”, the front upper glacis is barely worse than the T90A or T80U but better than the T80B. the turret is about the same as the T80U.
The hull of this according to the blog:
so how you would think the T-80BV chassis is “much” worse than the A i do not understand.
Try taking it into protection analysis and doing protection maps for different rounds at 10.0 or 10.3 tanks. it has exactly the same weakspots as almost all other tanks at this BR with the exception that the upper front eats MBT APFSDS for breakfast.
It is much worse armour than that.
292 has worse hull armour than T-72B.
T-90A has same hull armour as T-72B but ERA added.
T-80U has same hull armour as 292 but with ERA which helps it being less lol-pen, even though any DM-53 with L-55 goes through.
292 has worse turret armour than all mentioned, but also has same weakspots as any mentioned.
In game T-80BV is just 1983 T-80B with Kontakt-1 slapped.
In game 292 is based on actual 1985 T-80BV.
1 Like
you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
Here:
firstly the 3BM42 round at 500M:
Secondly the DM33 105mm round at 500m:
Third the DM33 out of a 120mm L/44 at 500m:
fourth the DM33 out of a 120mm L/55 at 500m:
Overall: almost identical to T80U/T-72B in armor (even slightly smaller weakspots on the lower end of rounds listed.) and A LOT better than T80B. all whilst having a round that is massively better than all of them and also:
how on earth they wrote this:
in the dev-blog i have no clue as it clearly does not.
2 Likes
Nah, rather you.
All tests with DM-33 at 500 meters.
First is T-80U, then 292, then T72B.
T72B is already better than 292, then T-90A will be even better than 292 for the Konkakt-5.
1 Like