M829A2 has slightly worse spalling due to the lower projectile mass (4.92kg instead of 5.00kg), and worse penetration (364mm of angle pen @60 degrees @ 10m instead of 377mm of angle pen @60 degrees @ 10m).
I’m not sure what you are trying to say there, other than the fact that it has a shorter barrel (which is definitely a bonus but isn’t that important in the long run).
Type 10 has better and more trolly armour than the Ariete AMV.
One has no armour while the other has some armour.
Type 10 has multiple other benefits that the Ariete lacks that makes one meta for SRB while the other one not.
It makes their armour decent, as you must aim for the non-trolly spots to actually get reliable hits in.
This is definitely not as good as actual armour, but that’s still something nonetheless.
Take a good 5 minutes to read what I said without skimming through it.
If the round the round can exceed the armor values of a tank then yes but that’s the issue. At a slight increase in angle, it’ll be unable to do so. That’s what makes it inconsistent (ignoring the fact that spalling is even more inconsistent)
How many in the HSTVL though?
Would me screen recording count as video evidence? Actually spend the time to counter the points I made, not appealing to authority which you love to do
Did I say auto-light tanks or the HSTVL? Again, when was the last time you played the HSTVL
I’m not the one touting my stats as evidence. I find it really funny when you “show off” how good you are in a vehicle to make a point.
Again, make logical arguments without talking about your stats.
This is a bit off topic but I believe British players tend to have better understanding of how/where to aim at 8.0+ since they didn’t have a massive handhold that’s APHE’s sphere of death basically nuking everything as long as you penetrated.
I generally don’t think British vehicles are as bad as they say - but I do agree that some are not great (especially with the constant shell shattering now). Conqueror is especially one of the worse ones I’ve played due to the shell shattering and long reload (with the crappy spalling).
I really enjoy the Black Prince, Challenger, and a bunch of their 8.0-9.3s though.
Vickers Mk.1 and Olifant Mk.2 are both perhaps some of the most underrated vehicles they have to offer.
It’s probably a bit of a victim complex from the solid AP vs APHE days, but plenty of tanks are pretty solid.
I’m not into late heavies so I’m glad I haven’t played Conqueror lol.
Vickers especially, 5s reload with full stabilization and L7 APDS at 8.0 is amazing.
Haven’t played Olifant but it looks nasty in test drive, good dart, optics and gen 2 thermals with decent mobility.
One of the main reasons why I think the Leopard I should be 7.7 (as the Vickers is effectively that but better in almost every aspect other than slightly worse gun depression and mobility).
Olifant Mk.2 also gets ESS so you can use your gen 2 thermals against tanks that have no thermals (which are plentiful at 9.3 and lower, especially against Russian / Chinese MBTs).
Also gets a decent reverse speed and 10 degrees of gun depression.
Turret armour is actually fairly effective at stopping T-62’s 3BM4 / 3BM3, as well as the T-55’s 3BM25 and sometimes even 105mm DM23; although, this only really works well in hull down positions due to the lack of composite armour on the lower portion of the turret.
I don’t think it should be the same BR as the Turm III, unless you’re saying it should go to 8.7.
I also don’t think the Leopard I should be the same BR as the TO-55, which in turn shouldn’t be the same BR as the T-55A if you think it should also go up in BR.
T-54 should generally be the same BR as the Leopard I.
The 1947 is 7.7 at the moment, while the 1949 and 1951 are both 8.0 (which I also think should be 7.7, but I can see why it is 0.3 higher than the 1947 one).
The 7.7 might make sense at 7.3, as its cupola and mantlet are fairly easy to pen:
I was talking about the Vickers there, you probably misunderstood what I was saying.
If the Vickers were 8.3, it would be inferior to the Turm III in every way… etc.
Yeah, fair enough.
I also would like more decompression, but I’m not sure how long that will take.
Yeah I can see that, but I don’t think it would be too bad.
I just think the Leopard I and T-54s could definitely use some buffs (whether it be via BR decompression, or BR reduction, artificial buffs (like reloading speed), or actual buffs to their characteristics).
However, I do understand that buffing one or two vehicles at the sacrifice of many others is not a good idea.
This is why I stand against keeping event vehicles at good BRs for the sake of them being good.
A select few vehicles shouldn’t ruin an entire BR range (cough cough BI).
I do remember that the T-54s used to be 7.3 / 7.7, and the Leopard was 7.3, but I don’t think the T-54s were that much of a nuisance - and the Leopard going back to 7.7 doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
Same with the BMP-1s going to 7.7, the R3 T106 FA to 7.7, and possibly the AML-90 / Eland 90 Mk.7 back to 7.3.
Leopard is decent at 8.0 but it’s not that great to be honest.
Just look at the Vickers Mk.1, or the OF-40 (which is basically a slightly less mobile Leopard I but with a LRF), or the Type 69 (much slower but has good armour against conventional rounds, has a LRF and has a Stab), or the TO-55 (better mobility than the Type 69 but no LRF), or the Magach 5 (which gets ERA and even 105mm DM23, though it has similar mobility to the Type 69 and no stab).
