Gun handling is both horizontal and vertical. The 292 has worse vertical.
Don’t be dishonest.
There is a bigger area where the diverer’s port can be penned. It will result in a oneshot.
The mantlet is also weaker, with a giant ammo rack behind it, that you can not remove. Penning there will blow up the tank, which does not happen with the T-90A.
It also lacks ERA, which greatly improves the armor, especially against HEAT type warheads, which is the stock ammo of pretty much any gun tank at that BR (except UK and Sweden).
What was the reason of multiplying the 2 numbers? It means nothing.
No argument needed for that. You think that having no thermals is not an issue. It significantly reduces a tank’s effectiveness, especially when it has bad armor and a longer reload.
You shoot the exact same spots on every russian MBT. And in case of the 292, even 8.0 tanks can pen those parts.
Yes, it is good to just LOLpen the front, but even with those shells, a reasonably good player will still aim for those spots.
You know what an “example” is, right?
Can pen all rounds? What?!
So what? I don’t get what do you mean.
Congrats! They are glass cannons!
Just because the "“HE” part is not written, they are still APHE, since they have a high explosive filler.
You lack the essential knowledge of the game dude.
And a good amount of the maps at top tier are nearly completely flat and/or are in cities.
I also wasn’t being dishonest; I’d test driven the Obj 292 and it didn’t feel much different than the top tier Russian MBT squadron vehicle that I test drove a while ago in terms of vertical gun handling.
Additionally, I tested the vertical traverse of the Obj 292 and T-80UM2 (I don’t have top tier Russia so I was guessing at different test drive URL’s and was able to guess the T-80UM2’s correctly) by aiming at the bottom of the wooden pole to the left of the crosshair in the image below, starting a timer while simultaneously aiming (the smaller crosshair showing where the barrel will end up) at the lower of the two top cross-beams.
For the T-80UM2 it took 5.58 seconds (I also tested the T-80UK because I forgot it existed and got 5.68 seconds), and for the Obj 292 it took 6.60 seconds, so about an 18% decrease in vertical speed. It is worse, but not really sure how much it will effect gameplay due to the aforementioned lack of maps with huge changes in elevation.
Comparing similar rounds of similar types of vehicles. A lot of tests/theorums/evaluations apply to specific circumstances, like implicit solutions to functions which only apply locally.
The T-80UM2 has no thermals lol and it’s 11.0. Again, the armor of the Obj 292 is not bad even at 10.7 - I mean it just seems like you want to ignore how I showed that the armor of the Obj 292 is only similar to a glass cannon at 11.3. Again, it also can just straight up do more DPS than any Russian MBT before 10.7.
I mean why are you saying “What was the reason of multiplying the 2 numbers? It means nothing,” while also saying “It significantly reduces a tank’s effectiveness, especially when it has bad armor and a longer reload.”
So does the reload matter or not? I am literally just showing that despite the slower reload of the Obj 292, it literally is barely affected because it does similar levels of damage as the other Russian MBT’s at 10.0 and 10.3. The issue is that the Obj 292 can also lolpen everything in the game, which the Russian MBT’s at 10.0 and 10.3 cannot. If my comparison doesn’t matter then the reload doesn’t matter.
This isn’t an argument. If the penetration values of only the weakspots mattered then there should be no round in the game higher than like 400mm of pen at top tier, let alone at lower tiers.
The Obj 292 having similarly sized weakspots to the T-90A is literally an argument that the Obj 292 should be moved to a higher BR than the T-90A. A glass cannon should not be as survivable as the average tank it its BR.
Saying good players will still have good aim doesn’t mean anything. The Obj 292 doesn’t need to aim much at all (essentially all it has to go is not shoot at places that will eat the rounds regardless or will ricochet, like the tracks or heavily angled armor) to do massive damage.
An example of what? That the M1A2 SEPv2 should be at the same BR as the T-90A because of it’s massive frontal weakspots?
Wow a single typo, couldn’t just swap one word out to get what I was saying.
Yes, and the Obj 292 literally is not a glass cannon until it gets moved to at the very least 11.0 if not 11.3. Wow, thanks for agreeing with me, I don’t know why you’re arguing against the Obj 292 moving to 11.3, though (/s).
Alright I’m back now, I got very sick over the course of Saturday and Sunday.
There are tanks with APCBC with HE filler in them in the American tech tree, but that filler takes up a much lower percentage of the mass of the shell - between an extra ~60% to ~100%. Russian APHEBC also does not have the standard cap, yet their ricochet values are the same as US APCBC. The very small difference in the performance of Russian APHEBC and APBC is very suspect, for example the APHEBC round BR-350B (MD-8 fuse) is at only a 3% penetration deficit while weighing the exact same amount as the APBC round BR-350P while also putting 100.1g of TNTeq into the round.
You only talked about the horizontal drive, which is the same, and conveniently forgot to talk about the vertical, which is different. So you were being dishonest.
And it has no additional value of multiplying the penetration of the round with the ready ammo count.
105 is closer to 125, than 152 to 125 btw.
It has a better overall gun, has much better armor, hard kill APS, commander override, HMG, and does not have a giant, unprotected ammo rack in the back of it’s turret.
Because multiplying the ready rack ammo count with the penetration means nothing.
Because it is.
It does. And i did not say it does not matter. If you think i said that, feel free to quote the exact line!
It has a not of disadvantages compared to them. I already told you.
You comparison is BS, and meaningless.
That is just dumb. It has bigger weak spots.
It will not be.
You still need to know where to shoot. YOu might LOLpen any tank’s turret you see, but it means nothing if you shoot the wrong side, only kill the loader, and in return, you get 1shotted.
Yep, you don’t know what an example is.
Because it will be a glass cannon.
They are still APHE.
Using TNTeq istead of the charge mass already shows that you know nothing about the topic you talk about.
The penetration value is affected by the filler mass, not the equivivalent.
Calculator with russian shells:
Spoiler
BR-350B
BR-350SP:
96.6/99.16/0.974
US 75mm
Spoiler
Normal M61:
M61 without filler:
103.96/106.37=0.977
Being dishonest by not mentioning a difference in vertical handling of 18%, when you have been saying the Obj 292 has bad mobility when it literally has a 26% better power-to-weight ratio than the T-72’s at 10.0 and better mobility than everything in the T-72 line besides a single vehicle?
You were saying the low amount of ammo in the ready rack was a bad thing, and the only way you could mean that is by saying that more ready rounds = vastly more damage before having to restock the rack. All I did was show that this was not true, and that the difference between the damage the Obj 292 can do with its 16 ready rounds is roughly equivalent to the tanks at 10.3 and 10.0, so it is not lacking.
You: less ready rounds = less damage
Me: less ready rounds, but much better penetration and post-pen damage = same damage as other 10.0 and 10.3 tanks, so it is not lacking
And this is supposed to matter because? The CM11 isn’t Russian nor does it have a 120mm+ cannon. I said 120mm+ because what Russian MBT has a cannon less than 120mm that is within even a single decade of the T-72?
The thing would only be barely weaker than the hull and would actually have a noticeably weaker turret if the Obj 292 was moved to the same BR as the T-80UM2.
Nothing before 10.7 can pen it outside of it’s weakspots, which are either the same size or smaller than other Russian tanks at 10.0. That is not a glass cannon.
Comparing the Obj 292 to the T-80UM2 only makes the hull have a low possibility of penetration and the turret finally have a larger weakspot if moved to 11.0 does not mean it’s a glass cannon.
Glass cannons should have very weak defense/armor, not literally comparable to tanks 0.7 BR above them and only moderately worse a full BR above them.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the Obj 292, though. When shooting the same place with the Obj 292 versus literally any other APFSDS round in the game will result in the Obj 292 doing more damage.
Notice how I said “putting 100.1g of TNTeq into the round,” not “putting 100.1g of TNT into the round.”
If you’ve got data saying they use different types of filler than cool, but until then yeah I’m just going to assume there isn’t a large difference in the filler mass.
Yeah, compare it to the slowest vehicles in the game. You know, a Churchill tank also has better mobility than a T95, yet both are slow.
No. You will miss, and not kill tanks with 1shot, also there could be shots that get eaten by volumetric.
16 rounds in a slow autoloader is not a lot.
No. See reasons above.
You did not say that initially.
It has no ERA, meaning the driver’s port weakspot is bigger and weaker.
No ERA on the side ->much worse armor, especially at an angle.
Very weak mantlet with an ammo rack behind it → any shot penning there will kill the tank, unlike on the others.
That is just blatantly false.
And you can wipe your a** with it if you shoot the worng place that ends you being dead, because the tank still has a breach and/or a commander.
Which is still crap. You can get that equivivalent with a lot of ways, them ranging from having less actual mass to actually having more mass than the TNTeq.
Do you have these things, called, “eyes”?
If yes, do you have this cool ability, called “reading”?
If still yes, then check ammo statcards.
Someone do something for german planes. Every plane seems way out of place in BR.
First I was flying the 1945 Me-163 B-0 against some 1980s MiG-21’s and what not. Thought that OK this is only a temporary thing. But after that I got the CL-13 9.0 and 9.3, which are also CONSTANTLY flying against 10.3 enemies. I have started disconnecting every battle in which I see a 10.3 plane at start before spawning plane. This means like disconnecting 5/6 battles. Unacceptable.
Who cares? In terms of mobility it is better than 50% of what top tier Russia has to offer while being a full 1.7 BR below 11.7.
If an Obj 292 and a T-72B (or whatever other 10.0 or 10.3 tank) misses the same percentage of shots that will not matter. 10*0.5 still equals 5 regardless if it’s arranged (5+5)*0.5 or (2+2+2+2+2)*0.5.
See the above.
The first time I mentioned this type of calculation I specifically only mentioned Russian MBT’s around it’s BR, all of which have cannons greater than 120mm in diameter. It can assumed that because I am trying to compare the Obj 292 to other Russian tanks that I would only look at Russian tanks (especially when you’re comparing the Russian Obj 292’s ready rack size to the ready rack size of other Russian MBT’s at top tier) and it’s also assumed I wouldn’t be tanking about IFV’s and stuff because they don’t do enough penetration to frontally pen without aiming for weakspots (it would be like saying a Sherman Jumbo is good enough for 11.7 because it can pen the weakspots of top tier tanks).
The driver’s hatch/port weakspot is bigger, but the Obj 292 has essentially no turret ring weakspot, making it more survivable on the whole as there is more pennable area on the horizontal (so in cases where an enemy gun needs to swing and shoot, there will be more area for them to hit on the T-80UM2).
Like pretty much every single other tank at the BR, while yes it is a slight disadvantage in terms of USSR the USSR does just straight up have an advantage in ERA in game (so it’s not like it’s particularly bad).
The mantlet generally has better protection than the T-80UM2’s mantlet, in terms of raw protection values from the protection analysis.
I also just went into the protection analysis and fired shots at the mantlet from every single spot I could and literally no shot to the mantlet of the Obj 292 will cause damage to the ammo, the cannon breech eats the spall and penetrator almost every time. Literally the only thing in that general area that will potentially cause damage to the ammo is by hitting the very middle of the driver’s sight. I also tested the T-80UM2 and it was the exact same story.
Uh, is it? You did see anything I showed prior with the heat maps? Or how about this:
First round that even has a low possibility of penning the Obj 292 outside of weakspots -
Russia - 3BM60, first seen at 10.7, low possibility
USA - M829, first seen at 11.0 (technically M900 on only the M1128 at 10.0, but that’s a singular vehicle which isn’t an MBT), low possibility
Germany - DM33 (120mm), first seen at 11.3, low possibility
Great Britain - L26, first seen at 10.3, low possibility
Japan - JM33, first seen at 11.0, low possibility
China - Type 1985-I APFSDS, first seen at 10.7, low possibility
Italy - DM33, first seen at 10.3, low possibility
France - OFL 120 F1, first seen at 11.7, low possibility
Sweden - DM33, first seen at 11.7, low possibility (although technically the slpprj m/95, first seen at 11.3, low possibility, but that’s on a light tank)
So all in all -
Two minor nations have rounds that can pen its non-weakspots at 10.3
A single major nation and a single minor nation have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 10.7
A major nation and a minor nation have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 11.0
A single major nation has rounds that can pen its non-weakspots at 11.3
Two minor nations have rounds that can pen non-weakspots at 11.7
Meaning it should be bare minimum 11.0-11.3.
And if you shoot literally anywhere else on the tank they’re insta-dead. If you shoot the tracks of a top tier tank with an AP round from a M2A4 it’s not going to do anything either, because shooting the tracks of a tank 99% of the time eats the round - the same holds for the cannon breech.
Yes, hence why I said “If you’ve got data saying they use different types of filler than cool, but until then yeah I’m just going to assume there isn’t a large difference in the filler mass.” The only thing I would change in this sentence would be to change the “in the filler mass” to “in the filler mass to TNTeq ratio” or something since I was talking about the amount of TNTeq in each round’s type of explosive filler.
I didn’t see anything about the types of filler being used, literally not a single chemical compound (or even non-reverse-engineerable common names like “C4” or something). Literally all they say is “filler,” never the name of a compound.
Statement: ALL missile-equipped SPAAs should get +0.7 br to give room for ASFs
A typical 10.3 SPAA like the ROLAND can be effective against aircrafts for about 5-6 km. Staying near the spawn(~2km away from cap), it is capable of destorying a 10.3 CAS plane (typical payload of unguided bombs/rockets with CCIP) well before the plane imposes any threat to allied tanks near the cap. Meanwhile, an ASF at 10.3 generally relies on rear-aspect IR missiles(effective range of around 3km), with radar-SARH missile combination effective only against high-altitude targets. This makes a 400+ SP ASF less effective than your 100 SP SPAA in destroying CAS planes, and the ASF itself is also threatened by the AA due to its inferior effective combat range. Rising the BR of all missile SPAAs should significantly degrade their performance – AAs should be effective in either avenging fallen ground teammates, or deter the pilot to use his payload in a less effective manner.
In other words, the br of SPAA should not be evaluated by how effective it is in eliminating ALL air threats at the same BR, but rather the HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONES(bombing, rocketing, helis…) only. Long-range (and thus less time efficient)) strikes outside the scope of SPAAs should be countered by ASFs.
This is exactly how low rank battles work – any pilot gunning ground targets would be punished by SPAAs quickly, while those bombing or rocketing tanks usually die to ASFs. Similar balance should be applied to higher rank battles as well, instead of SAMs blowing everyone off the sky
Way not man … the Italian one can match the USA easily. The Italian once were always a class for them. And people love them or leave. They expect no much of them.
But hey … USA tanks ?=?=? Do know what they are capable off? In war thunder they are made out of butter. Everything flyies through that tank and especially if you hit the cannon breach.
The only good things are bluewater and air. And if i see the way of game development even that will be nerved.
So good luck with USA. I am glad to know the good times, where you were able to really fight with them and not play hide and seek.,
Yes, yes it is. The fact that it is still at 11.7 is beyond me. It really isn’t that good of a vehicle- its the only tank, or one of two (The Leclerc) I am HAPPY to see fight against me when I play the US.
yeah, the US isn’t great, and I think comparatively it struggles to the other “Major Nations” at top tier (Sweden, Germany, Russia) and could use a buff, but at least it isn’t neglected like Italy or France at Top Tier. Those two nations NEED buffs and benefits to make their vehicles capable, or at the very least to encourage an Average Joe to play them instead of just people who have been playing for years and know what they are doing.
Because Italy mains has trancendented man-gold barrier, and they have supernatural skills that made sure that they can kill the BVM with a L3CC given the circumstances. To them, tanks are merely a mean to display skill.
Slow clap GJ, you really destroyed 9.0 - 12.7 with your Obj292 and the hardcore pros who allready bought or grinded the thing. It was not enough that BMP2M, 2S38 and KA50 are Op as hell, no you had to pull another stunt. And to the guys who will write “skill issue”, get some brain before you post.
