It would be a great addition for the increased flexibility of the MBTs and all the vehicles capable of comprehended it this BR bracket, it not a necessary feature but and interesting one.
Almost every proper tank has it: T-55A, Type 59, MARS-15, M48A2 G A2, T95E1…
Giving an example the only ones that doesn’t have are the Type 74 and M60A1 (AOS)
If I missed any or you wan to correct / modify, feel free.
Thanks for your time.
Do you have documentation or any other public source for such change?
Imagine a Turm III with APFSDS
there isnt much difference between and apds and the apfsds of the t55 or the t95e1, also giving apfsds to the type 74 would make it the same as the other 2 type 74 at 9.0…
The Type 59D (ZTZ59D1) APFSDS is far better than theT-55/T95E1 since it’s M111/DM23, it just has the major con of awful gun handling even with a single axis stabiliser.
Im not sure what you mean by “capable of comprehend it this BR bracket” but aviable ammo is often used as factor when deciding vehicle BR.
New ammo could mean new BRs.
I was referring to the ones capable of, in the way that historically had used it during their service life.
The best example i can give is the M60A1 fielded the M735 APFSDS since 1978 until the M774 surpassed it in the 80s.
I was refering that the main armament of the tank at 8.3 can fire APFSDS and such tanks fielded it during service.
I agree on you saying ammo being a factor of BR, but didn’t take into account because, giving an example, the M60 at 8.0 has the same ammo as the Leo 1, first Type 74 and STB-2. The 105mm APDS M392 and DM13 but all of them sit at 8.0.
If any more doubts or suggestions, keep it coming.
At the time the Turm was a thing, APFSDS was solely in service in the USSR and in development in NATO countries until the mid-late 70s it the form of the DM23 with the Leo 1A1 and M735 of the M60A1.
If any more doubt, I’m open to it.
The type 69iia has apfsds and its apds and heat are both dogwater. The aphe isn’t good enough for 8.3. There are accepted bug reports on the missing darts. (Just one example)
Look up to the field manuals of the USA during the 70s that are public or even weapons history.
As Beeschurger said there’s little to no way something gets a boost in firepower without tier shifts, the Type 74 being a prime example as even with M735 it would be on par(-ish) in capabilities to the Leo A1A1 at 9.0. And I’d argue the M48A2GA2 was a much better vehicle at a lower BR without fin sabot.
M728 on the AOS is baby APFSDS anyway, it’s much better than M392A2, basically one of the best APDS rounds you can find other than the 120mm L15A3 on the Chieftain. Sure the statcard implies worse flat pen but the slope modifiers; vastly superior.
this is the one vehicle you actually DONT want to recieve any new ammo and possibly raise in BR. I play mostly US 8.7 in GRB nowadays, had extra crew slot and i decided to spade T95E1. Nearly had a stroke because the thing is just unbelievably bad, so quickly looking at what M60 has to offer I avoided it like a plague.
Why should I look for information if wasn’t me to propose a change?
Type 69-IIa is in a good position, despite the weaker APDSFS round it has, the Type 44 APCBC holds the same stats to the BR-412D, which the T-55AMD-1 has but at higher battle rating.
The vehicles in the game are, in addition to fitting them into BRs as mentioned already, are a “snapshot in time”. That means that while a vehicle might have eventually been equipped with an ammunition or equipment, that doesn’t mean that a vehicle depicted in the game as from a specific date would have it. This is one of the “reasons” why there are often multiple variant vehicles of the same type in the game.
Yes, the above is a bit of rationalization of Gaijin’s decision making, but it is what it is. Its their game and its very unlikely they will comply with your request.
I prefer tanks to just get the bullets they’ve historically used. In fact, I find it horrible that gaijin uses this as another way to balance the game, when they can just add new models to fill in the gaps.
What gaijin did to the Type 69IIa is a disgrace, exactly the same disgrace as with the Magach 3 ERA, which carries ammunition that does not match the tank model. It would be giving the Challenger 2 TES the L23A3 as the best ammunition, or giving the IPM1 the M392A1 as the best ammunition.
I know, thats why i opened this suggestion to talk about the possibilities of the different MBTs, more detailed it the ammunition department.
As i have been doing in almost every reply I have the M60A1 (AOS) example as it was the MBT that receive several upgrades during its service, some are visible it the game. I searched a bit and look up at the version of the M60A1 (AOS) in game and didn’t specify and partially that was the main focus without forgetting other MBTs that could benefit from this.
If a y more suggestions, keep it up.
That’s true the M60A1 AOS sits at a good BR, i have been playing it since December and it didn’t let me down in a single occasion. Thus it will have effects on its current BR.
The T95E1 like the M60, has being a really good vehicle for me. I can’t say much that it hasn’t already been said.
That isn’t a good example. The M60A1 (AOS) was in service in 1972 prior to APFSDS being fielded. And it was superseded by the M60A1 (RISE) in 1977 which would have had that round.
So the various M60A1s in the game represent different time periods and are correct. Foreign operators of tanks with the AOS upgrade might have eventually have had sabot (like Israel), but again, those are represented by different game vehicles.