I did not like my time in the m-51 for last battlepass’s israel challenge, however, it was extremely cathartic to just shoot a panther in the front and watch it die
1 Like
6 out of 10 times is already being generous, 4 out of 10 times is more realistic.
Bushes should not be a balancing parameter or a default, you should not take them into account. I don’t own a single one.
Well, the OF-40 (MTCA)'s, TAM 2IP’s, and AMX-32’s rounds are equivalent to most mobile 10.7 MBTs. It’s just the reload that makes their firepower worse (6.7s instead of 6s / 5s). They also have their own unique qualities:
OF-40 (MTCA) has great gun handling, TAM 2IP gets good mobility and above average gun handling, and the AMX-32 gets a coaxial 20mm (albeit not amazing) and thermals + ESS.
I think these being 9.7 makes sense as a result.
The KPZ-70 / XM-1s all have crappy rounds with a mediocre 6.7s reload (besides the KPZ-70), but they have even better mobility, great gun handling, great gun depression, a 20mm / thermals, and more usable armour than the ones I’ve mentioned above.
These seem reasonable at 9.7 as well.
The MBT-70 does not get a 6.0s reload like the KPZ-70 does, so I think this one is fine at 9.3.
Well,
The Type 16 FPS and AMX-30 Super are somewhat of an odd-ball.
The Type 16 FPS is quite tanky against autocannons frontally, while still having access to DM23 (not great but not as bad as M735 / XM578E1), amazing sight, amazing thermals, great mobility, and good gun handling.
The AMX-30 Super is similar in the way that it also has great mobility, good gun handling, amazing sight and access to thermals, and it gets a better dart than DM23 (although not as good as DM33).
These seem to me like they should be 9.7.
The Olifant Mk.2, Gal Batash, CM11, and ZTZ96 kinda fit into the same group where their rounds are amazing, and they have other good qualities.
Sure they don’t have great mobility like the other ones I’ve mentioned above, but their armour and / or gimmicks make them worthwhile.
Olifant Mk.2 gets DM63 with Gen 2 thermals and access to ESS.
Gal Batash gets DM63, trolly turret armour (especially for crappy darts used by the KPZs / XM-1s) and access to thermals + ESS.
CM11 has the worst armour, mobility, and survivability out of the four but it gets DM63 with a 5s reload, and still gets access to thermals + ESS.
The ZTZ96 gets an incredible round (Type 1985-I APFSDS), good enough armour against anything <= DM23 (which isn’t anything crazy but can be quite good in downtiers or KPZs / XM-1s), and still gets decent mobility.
I’d say these are good qualities that should reflect a 9.7 BR.
I haven’t really had an issue after using ESS with thermals for the past year. It’s a really underrated gimmick at that BR range.
Not really? Unless you’re comparing when manual-loaded tanks have only two crew members left.
7.5s is still abysmal compared to 6.0s, 6.7s, and even 7.0s (like for the T-72s and ZTZ96s).
You’re assuming that those manually-loaded tanks get shot in the first place, which:
It’s better to be alive with 2 crew members than die to an ammorack explosion 😅
I mean, that would be nice though I wouldn’t say it’s really necessary for them.
Sure, though the ones you’ve stated here:
Only one of them has a superior dart.
The other 9.3s (like the Leopard 1A5 and Strv 105) have DM33 / DM63 too but I wouldn’t consider them to be anything special. They’re just solid for 9.3.
I mean you are correct. Residual penetration has different bands.
IIRC:
<50mm of residual penetration,
50mm - 400mm of residual penetration,
and
400mm+ residual penetration.
So if you are penetrating ~20mm of armour, or are penetrating ~370mm with DM33, the spalling of DM33 and OFL 120 G1 is the same.
So UFPing the T-72s (which have ~380mm of UFP armour front-on) with DM33 and OFL 120G1 may be different.
That being said, OFL 120G1 is still a very serviceable round with all things considered.
Weakspots (like the LFP) will result in similar spalling.
MBT-70:
KPZ-70:
KPZ-70 also weighs less, giving it a HP/TON of 29.8 (almost as good as the 2K’s 30hp/ton, though the transmission of the KPZ-70 / MBT-70 isn’t as good).
I can get behind that.
A 6s reload with thermals seems reasonable at 10.7. Maybe 11.0 considering it would be a PT-16 with thermals, better turret mantlet armour, and access to rooftop 20mm at the cost of a 4s reload.
I mean, it sounds good on paper but I wouldn’t say it has been doing particularly well at 6.3:
I’ve never really had a problem with heat tbh.
Especially on the M-51 / AMX that fires the same shell.
Theres the odd shot that will do a small amount of damage, but generally that chance is pretty universal across all ammo types. Unless it’s Smoke… or APCR on a tank that shouldn’t have APCR shot at it.
They kinda should.
Some light tanks can be completely hidden because of it, and some TD’s and Heavies will use them to hide weakspots.
Others may use them too.
But they do change a vehicle’s effectiveness and that much is true.
1 Like
make an option to hide them.
A ton of Sherman players do this in low tier to bully new players and it’s quite frankly just gross. For a “cosmetic” option, a lot of people sure do like to just put them in places that make their tank ugly but happen to hide things!
2 Likes
Mor common cannon netting and things found in wartimes like:
Tracks
Wheels
Logs
Etc
Would be far more fun to use without being as abusive in my opinion.
I wouldn’t even care if it added an appropriate level of protection per item.
Have you ever actually PLAYED the dumpster fire that is the Ho-Ri Prototype? Its performance is abysmal and has paper armour for its BR, any T34 or god forbid Tiger 2 will eat you alive, the tank should be at 6.0 where it was before, just because Japanese players manage to make an objectively mediocre if not outright bad vehicle good doesnt justify its BR, the Jagdpanther or Ferdinand are just better than the Ho-Ri Prototype
1 Like
Not the prototype, but it’s almost a full br higher.
Aren’t you the guy who was complaining about it being bad while also spawn camping the entire match with it the other day?
1 Like
The difference being, the Production actually has armor.
I’ve argued in the past that the Production is a skill check, since practically every gun it faces can pen it pretty consistently if they aim correctly and hit the outer portion of the casemate.
However, the Prototype is an IQ test, and one the community at large seems to be failing based on how they talk about it.
Literally all you have to do if you’re facing the Prototype is to not aim for the giant, sloped UFP. The casemate is 150mm at it’s strongest, with 120mm at the edges. Even the weakest pop guns it can face in full downtiers can easily punch through the sides, and the overwhelming majority can also get through the strongest points, even at long range.
Hell, the stronger 6.7 guns can punch right through the mantlet if they want. The curved area surrounding the gun is only 200mm thick, and unlike on the Production, it will let shells through into the crew compartment with consistency. The backing plate is 250mm, but it’s cast, meaning it’s actual protection is ~235mm, meaning the long 88 can get through it at close range, which means even if a Tiger II fluffs his shot and hits the single strongest piece of armor on the casemate, there’s still a chance it’ll go through.
Meanwhile, the toeplate is only 75mm thick, meaning some of the stronger SPAA autocannons can completely disable it’s movement frontally.
And it’s not even particularly mobile. It’s got 10 HP/t, which makes it about as quick as the Ferdinand, except without the electric transmission that makes it’s agility and reverse speed top of the class.
And it’s gun is weaker than the Productions, at only 205mm pen point blank, as opposed to 233.
The Production is a very different beast, but players apparently just don’t appreciate the difference.
1 Like
Conveniently leaves out the bmpt.
It was actually removed from the list a long time ago after it was moved up in br several times.
(Just like many other Russian vehicles I proposed to go higher in br. Which is funny that they easily go higher in br compared to other nations)
Read through all the comments before making your very un-informed statement.
Thank you!
Here, I even went to the liberty of searching for it for you. Because I know some forum users are very lazy. @TheBloodRend
Ho-Ri Prototype could be 6.3 to be honest. It’s much worse than the Production. Mobility is abysmal (which is very problematic for a casemate), reverse speed is mediocre and, yes, the armour is significantly worse too.
6.0 maybe, though to be honest the gun is very good for the reload. It’s why I don’t think it should go any lower. Basically an IS-2 round every 8.6s just with worse angle penetration and chance of ricochet.
The Ho-Ri Production has a very similar volumetric thing to a bunch of oscillating turret tanks in that the armor technically being spaced completely fucks APDS in a lot of places. The T58 is especially egregious in this regard in that there’s a large portion of the turret side that you cannot shoot with even the fucking Chieftain if you want that shot to do anything. This WAS an excuse to complain about this how could you tell!
today, t55a needs to be moved up, its basically a 9.3 vehicle at 8.3, the zsu 23 with missiles should also go up. and the italian c13 needs to go down, like a whole BR. its a worse AUBL at a higher BR. there are many other examples
This has to be bait, I refuse to believe otherwise.
2 Likes
Unrelated to this take, what’s your opinion on volokolamsk?
no it’s genuinely incredible how unplayable non-american 8.7 is right now. But sure dude the t58 is DEFINITELY not the problem considering it’s the entire reason every FUCKING game is against america.