what are you yapping about all day? are u saying that USA can stand a chance against a BVM, an abrams shooting it to the side and the BVM doing the same, who would win?
talking about the strongest APFDS? it doesn’t matter when your side armor and front armor can stand those shots, it’s crazy how yall mention uhhh mobility, uhhhh it’s turret cheeks, while abrams getting killed daily (not talking about squadron nor premium abrams) and winrates on the ground, and here alvis yapping too about skill, it doesn’t matter when a russian or sweden holding W towards and u shoot them and it says non pen, or critical hit but u actually hit the engine no crew got damaged
Skill do not matter, while a t80uk with 3bm46 holding W and sees a sep v2 and one shot it while moving and penned it’s hull, while russians and other nations hold W, USA gotta use skills to get a few kills, and when a USA main start talking about giving it fair armor and model their tank correctly, these trolls jump arround and start yapping about uhhhh it got a remote control machine gun, uhhhhh strongest APFDS, this forum is dooomed.
To clarify my stance: I think the majority of Russian MBT’s are currently fine for their respective BR’s, the Object 292 could probably go to 10.3 and that the T-90A is still pretty bad at 10.7, but aside from that the BR’s are okay.
However, if the armour were to be changed in the way I described in the thread I linked to, there’d need to be a massive amount of BR changes, with many of these MBTs being lowered in BR’s.
Just because one composite design is effective doesn’t mean other designs can’t be effective too.
It just depends on what you prioritize.
The denser composite arrays the Soviets used had superior KE protection but inferior CE protection (massive generalization, I know).
It’s clear that both sides used methods that satisfied their needs, the Soviet designs just had the benefit of using much smaller designs.
I’m not so sure that the resulting correction would be so large, impact a lot of vehicles sure, yes it would require a drastic change to the playstyle and mean that the ability to brawl by baiting shots and relying on armor to allow for the follow up would be curtailed(thus a dip in relative performance).
Map offerings and matchmaking may not be great for them either, but the comparative performance at range , and sheer depth and flexibility available to their lineups makes individual vehicle performance less of a deal breaker , since the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. tanks aren’t that much of a downgrade, especially in comparison to some other nations.
They are designed to protect form their expected high risk threats, and if anything force the opponent to commit, expend and exhaust their limited resources to defeat them. further the on the balance of probability a tank is far more likely run into Man portable / vehicle mounted AT, for them to openly engage one another is rare. But it is absolutely what you would expect them to design a few high cards into the various systems or hold in reserve to ensure success.
Then again The current tranche of box tanks and Eastern derived designs are older, and a holdover(s) from back when it was expected that like vs like engagements were going to happen with some frequency so arrays not optimizing for KE threats seems backwards, and things like ARAT and assorted add on kits practically focus on extending CE protection, probably tips their hand slightly to the fact that they were not CE focused, and would otherwise rely on the KE performance of the underlying Array(s) for protection.
And its not like KE Ammo has gotten that much better, or a caliber increase precipitated necessitating revising the Armor schema to ensure sufficient protection was present.
T-64B armor is equal or better then T-72B since the only drawback of T-72B was the FCS but in WT, that can’t not be counted since they only take the aiming speed as stats.
Currently the “pass-through” effect is limited by the design / physics of the games.With that properly implemented, that stated true for both DM53 and M829A2
Again, German test and Russian (with NATO’s standard) equivilent.
Spoiler
And all of them is for the hull, the turret is much better.
But still, if the “pass-through” mechanic got implemented, that’s another story since not only DM53/M829A2/… any NATO equivilent rounds benefit from it, the 3BM42/46 also should be abble to straight through M1A1 but it’s not.
Also, my test drive show that T-72B K1 and naked T-90A (no K5 on hull) can’t resist M900.
The comparison between DM and M is kinda not fair since “US equivilent” is much later and is intended to punch thourh heavier target.
That source claims M829 could penetrate this array at close ranges, M900 is superior to M829 so it should pose a significant threat.
The T-72B most definitely had superior protection IRL, both it’s turret and hull are further developments from the dated RHA-STEF-RHA-STEF-RHA layout of the T-64B.
The T-72B’s turret also incorporated bulging plate technology, which the T-64B did not.
I wasn’t taking that into account, I’m merely working with simplistic armor -vs- pen charts here.
And to clarify what my chart is about:
NATO sources generally have armour protection equivalents written with a flat penetration requirement.
That means that a Leopard 2A5 is stated to possess 430mm of RHAe against KE threats for the glacis.
A shell must therefore possess 430mm of flat penetration at minimum to perforate this composition.
Soviet sources are different, they usually cite armour protection equivalents in terms of total line-of-sight RHAe, a T-64A’s line-of-sight equivalency is around 335mm, however, if we were to use the flat penetration requirement standard that NATO sources use, the T-64A’s glacis would possess around 275mm of RHAe.
Similarly, if we used the line-of-sight RHAe of a Leopard 2A5’s glacis, it’d be 499mm effective.
Gaijin made the mistake of using the Russian line-of-sight values and used them in War Thunder’s formula which converts it into flat penetration requirements, that’s why most Russian MBT’s are overperforming quite a bit.
Well, almost every Russian/Soviet MBT in War Thunder also uses ammunition that’s either extremely rare IRL, or was introduced well after.
I don’t want to get into real life stuff too much, but in a certain conflict going on right now, we’ve seen stuff as old as 3BM-22 in Russian tanks.
Not SARH missiles, all radar missiles, including active ones. The Phoenix gets multipathing a low altitude it just has a massive warhead so sometimes you splash people anyways. The only thing ARH missiles will do is reinforce the current WVR hug the ground meta because there is never any reason to climb to any appreciable altitude so you can almost always dive to the deck to 100% reliably defeat radar missiles.
Thanks for correcting me, valid point. I mean there is always kinematically defeating a Phoenix but that’s not a hard and fast counter. Whereas flying low, is.
I’m going to work on a document on how I feel BVRAAMs should be implemented. I’ll post it somewhere on the forum when I’m done (unfortunately it’s morphed into a bit of a "how best to use and counter ARHs so er)
But I feel changes need to be made for the sake of making the game vaguely enjoyable in the sense that it doesn’t devolve into a “who has the plane who S keys best” or “who rates faster”
I mean don’t get me wrong those are desirable traits. Just overkill like it is now isn’t fun.
No, M892 need at least 500m to “able” to pen through, the A1 can shred through it and A2 is an A1 modified to defeat K5.
Also not entirely true, 64B is much more resilent for “multiple shot” then 72B and the armor of T-64B is much complex to produce so they go around the same way Chobham did to simplicity the production and material choosing.
This is debatable since when a round hit the tanks, mostly they got that “angle” pen and that got “angle” armor value. Like when the Soviet tested their 3BM32, it can punch thourh higher flat pen then 3BM42 but loose much more of it pen value when dealing with angle armor.
Overall, i still think Gaijin got a long path to improve their caculation.
Yall should watch this video of mostly accurate server statistics(80% of it). The guy, K2, processed all replays from tip tier for a few days and theese are winrates:
Whilst I don’t doubt those win rates are accurate, they aren’t really a representation of the vehicles and their capabilities. USA, and obviously Russia…don’t have the worst vehicles.
The win rates are a function of the match maker and the player populations for each nation. US and USA are the two most popular nations, and most beginners will trend towards them.
Win rates are a function of the matchmaker, vehicle lineups, the vehicles themselves, and player skill, omitting any of these facets is playing with fire.
Tell me as well, Israel fits into the “high skill” minor nation bracket, why are they suffering as well? They almost exclusively get matched with Sweden in my time playing them, shouldn’t their WR be fantastic?
The answer is no because the Merkava series is a joke currently.
The US WR is suffering from the same issue but feeling a far greater response because of player counts, Israel has a tiny volume of players compared to any of the big 3 meaning that small volume has a vastly higher impact on WR.
I should also add that Germany has vastly more total games played when compared to the US as of the last patch and they are part of the big 3 along with being legendary for attracting the famous invulnerable tiger 1 players, yet, they sit with Sweden up at the very top.
Surely this is just the MM matching Sweden and Germany together all the time right? Its totally not the fact that the Leopard 2 series is the undisputed kings of top tier right now, nonono thats totally not the case.
Because our “mbt”s don’t have armor (gaijin hates the merks and think they can’t possibly have protection against kinetic energy ammunition despite having faced it in multiple wars) bug chonky boy with cardboard armor
and also have our top tier SPAA being 10.3 and IR only.
Also no ifvs (yet)
Israel doesn’t really fit into the game, and I don’t see why they added it to be honest. I don’t think they have worse overall vehicles than the UK or French trees.
Yeah definitely, but I’ve been playing a lot of top tier US grb recently to spade the 16C, and I would say most matches are lost in the first few minutes with people instantly leaving. It’s gotten so bad that I see people leaving without even spawning when they see they are matched with mostly US players. This is a self reinforcing cycle too, so that even experienced players with lots of vehicle options can’t be bothered to spawn multiple times, when they are just going to be spawn camped.
I didn’t say the matchmaker was the only factor, but it’s clearly not the biggest factor if Russia is second worse even with RussianBias™️.
The inaccurate modelling of US MBTs aside, Abrams itself is still easily in top 5 capability wise, possibly even top 3 following Leopard 2 series (as a whole) and T-80 series (as a whole), individually the only MBTs that can truly be called better than SEPs are 2A7V & 122s, if we stretch it also the BVM. The rest isn’t exactly better or worse, but many other tank models lack some crucial capabilites (either gun-handling, or mobility, or firepower etc).
The biggest issue is still Click-Bait & AIM players.
Its totally not the fact that the Leopard 2 series is the undisputed kings of top tier right now
This has been proven to be pure cope given the US WR was improving under the AIM but tanked the moment spall liners were added, lets keep blaming premium additions as always when the the AIM is a clear cut example of such a vehicle improving US win rates.
Literally the gold standard of a MBT in WT since they were introduced, cry me a river.
