Doesn’t really matter much in order to have effective armor against 8.0s, especially against those smartasses still using APHE.
1 Like
God - it wasn’t too long ago that the centurion mk3 faced the ta55-am pretty much every map. First generation shatter-happy apds against composite sporting, laser range finder equipped, dart firing t-55. It was utter ass.
The answer as always is decompression but sadly the system gaijin uses is terribly flawed and frustration (whic compression directly causes) is the entire point.
3 Likes
Reminds me of the 279
1 Like
The T-55AM-1 still has quite decent composite for both the turret cheeks and UFP against full uptiered opponents.
And the T-55AMD pretty much makes any of the overtiered ATGM carriers at 8.0-8.7 completely useless.
I wouldn’t say they’re the best 9.0s but they would be very strong if they’d ever move them back down to 8.7.
i would say the russkies had it even worse at 7.7-8.0
aphe against xm803 and chief mk.10…
At least T-80UD has been uptiered to 10.7 (finally), I hope it won’t be as bad as expected and it will drag the premium lineup to a steady 10.7
1 Like
Very fair:
Its armour at 9.0 and even 9.3 is quite amazing to be honest.
AMX-32 (105)s, AMX-30 Supers, XM803s, MBT-70s, KPZ-70s, XM-1 GMs, XM-1 Chryslers, and every DM23 slinger all can’t really do anything to you in front aspect other than pray that they can go through the breech.
1 Like
Yes thats the most baffling thing. TTD is actually very good, it was already good at the BR it was at. They had no need to move it.
Meanwhile Chieftain 900 and Mk 10 were barely passable at their 9.0 BR, with underperforming reload speed and fake ammo. L23 is just bad. T-72A, T-72M1 and ZTZ96 being the same BR is absurd.
4 Likes
Well, Mk 10 had similar turret armour as the T-64A / T-72A, all while having a similar round, much more usable reverse speed, actually good vertical guidance, and great gun depression.
But the T-72A / T-64A (especially the T-64A) have much better reloads, way more usable hull armour (At least for the T-72A), acceleration, and top speed.
I wouldn’t say the Chieftain Mk.10 nor Chieftain 900 were underperforming at 9.0 though – quite the contrary.
Their reloads are standard for Russian / Chinese MBTs (7.5s), with an above average shell for those types of vehicles.
DM23 is quite common even at 9.0, so L23 is actually above average for NATO MBTs too, though at the cost of the typical 6.7s reload.
Chieftain 900 was more versatile, and had quite trolly armour against DM23 and worse rounds.
The problem is that the difference between most 9.3s and 9.0s is quite large, so until they decompress that BR range, you’re going to either have to keep the Chieftain 900 and Chieftain Mk.10 at 9.0 and bully the 8.0 - 8.7 range, or have them face 9.3s - 10.3s that bully them relatively easily.
I’d say this goes the same way as with the T-72As, with their hull armour being useless against anything greater than M774 (Though M883 and especially DM33+ is more comfortable), especially for the T-64A.
1 Like
Or buff them without any real reason 😅
It’s nice that the T-64B and especially the T-80UD went up so that the TTD had more breathing room, but moving it down to 10.0 alongside those BR changes was unexpected.
Indeed 7.5s is a bizzarely optimistic reload rate for a 100mm, one which is clearly wrong considering the old one (pre buff) was from the manual. Chieftains meanwhile, underperforming per the manual it should be 6s. 900 and Mk 10 need fixes more than anything I have zero confidence in them currently. I can’t even argue with you about this, the idea Chieftain 900 is just a victim of compression is ludicrious to me, it’s not something that will stomp below it’s BR, it’s has M48 levels of armour and Dart ammo equivilent to M111. I have experience playing 9.3 with half the nations in the game. Britains is kind of on the weaker side of things! China is my favourite. France and America is middling.
If they had a 6s reload, I wouldn’t really mind them being 9.3 to be honest.
At the moment, they might be a little too weak for 9.3 but very strong for 9.0.
M48 Levels of armour isn’t really correct when the M48 can’t tank any shots to begin with:
Also L23 is better than DM23 by quite at lot at angles smaller than ~50 degrees, but I agree with you that its penetration at higher angles (60 degrees+) is effectively the same, if not slightly worse.
Also it definitely has been stomping at lower BRs:
This person has even been doing better than with his OF-40 (MTCA), which is notoriously good at 9.3.
But we could argue that 9.0s get more downtiers (and less full uptiers) than 9.3, so let’s check out his stats with other 9.0 vehicles within that same timeframe:
Even with the immense amount of games he had played with the Chieftain 900, his average KPS is higher than the Type 74 (E), T-55M, and even the Obj 279.
Britain’s existing 9.3 lineup is really good? What do you mean?
The Olifant Mk.2 is incredible for 9.3 (I’m surprised it hadn’t gone up yet), the Rooikat MTTD is pretty good, and the VFM5 too.
The Chieftain Mk.10 and Chieftain 900 were also really good for 9.0, but they’d be mediocre compared to the best 9.3s.
Yeah, China’s 9.3 lineup is pretty good.
France’s 9.3 lineup used to be really solid with the AMX-32 (120), but now that the AMX-32 (120) is 9.7, it’s mediocre unless you have the AMX-30 Super.
For USA, other than the XM-1 (GM), the 9.3 lineup for USA doesn’t really exist other than for the mediocre MBT-70.
USA’s 9.0s are pretty good though, with the M60 TTS, XM-1 Chrysler (if you have it) and XM803 existing there.
I am not convinced. I am a little biased possibly, it is admitedly well populated. Badger is naff. MTTD and VFM5 are good, but the former of those frustrates me with how placeholder the vehicle feels. An autoloader that just so happens to have the exact same reload as normal L7, big blowout panel that doesnt work, Gen 1 Thermals on a mid 2000s vehicle.
I have no complaints about OlifantMk2 I just don’t find it particuarly fun. The now 9.3 Chieftains I think are weak. No useful AA or Helis or aircraft either for the lineup.
Agreed. I’m not sure if it should go to 8.7 or not, but at the same time it doesn’t seem like it’s doing too badly either.
Well, from my experience at least, the 40 degrees of turret rotation speed, -10 degrees of gun depression, DM33, ESS + Thermals on a fairly mobile platform is quite good.
Type 16 (P), for example, has slightly better acceleration, much better optics and thermals, better vertical guidance, along with LWS and Smoke grenades, is also 9.3, but it doesn’t get ESS (so can’t use the ESS + Thermals combo), has only 30 degrees of turret rotation speed, only -6 degees of gun depression, and only gets DM23.
I think that’s a reasonable side-grade.
It does well in almost any scenario.
Do you want to play hull-down? Sure you can! You have a 6.7s reload with DM63 with great gun depression, reverse speed, and decent turret protection.
Do you want to brawl? You have a 6.7s reload with DM63, and ESS + Gen 2 thermals and great reverse speed to play with.
You can’t really go wrong with it in my opinion.
Yeah, which I wouldn’t mind having them get a reload buff in some way, especially considering the T-72s / T-64As got theirs.
None of the heli / aircraft at 9.0 / 9.3 are particularly good anyways to be fair.
Though I agree that it’s missing an SPAA between 8.7 - 9.7, though it’s not the end of the world.
My primary issue once again isn’t BR placement it’s accuracy. It has awful accuracy, which things like BMP-2 and BTR-80A get away with because they have a good rate of fire, Badger doesn’t (if you’re curious the Russian 30mms, the Bushmaster 30mm, the Ground Hispano 30mm, the Badger all have the same accuracy). Things like CV9035 gets very much nicer accuracy.
1 Like
Personally something about the MTTD just feels off. I’d rather take the Rooikat-105 or Type-16 any day of the week.
Not sure if it’s the sights or the gun elevation speed. TBF I play from gunner’s sights, might even be just the fact the gunner sits on the left side of the turret on the MTTD
edit:
Rest of the line up is solid though, only really needs a good IFV and SPAA/SAM
Maybe a Early lynx with only tows
1 Like
The Rooikat 105 and Type 16 both have 4-man crew, so maybe it’s because they’re a little bit more survivable? The ammo isn’t as exposed for either of them too.
The 105 and Type 16 both get smoke grenades as well, which the MTTD doesn’t.
Yeah possibly.
Not sure why you’d like to handicap yourself with gunner sight but you do you I guess 😅
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kBDyXv4H7817
It would be nice if gaijin gave the Chieftains their correct engines.
It would slightly nerf the MK.5, but the MK.10 would go from 760hp to ~850hp which is pretty significant.
The Mk.10 with 850hp would be perfect at 9.3
3 Likes
With a slightly better reload too…
6s may be a bit too much with a better engine now that I think of it, unless you want it to be 9.7
Maybe 6.5s or 7s?
1 Like
