I think the 3.7-7.0 BR Range has Become a Mess?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
33

Well Jumbo 76 is the armor of a Tiger 2 with a worse gun that’s stabilized, and is 6.3 not 6.7.
Tiger 1 is 5.7 not 6.7.
Super Pershing is a Tiger 2 equivalent heavy tank, so of course they should be the same BR.
KV-1s aren’t particularly grand I know, but Panzer 4 isn’t godly either.

Right now nothing is mutilated or mishandled in the context of your post.

@EddieVanHalo
Primarily the lack of PVE for game sustainability.
Tank physics are too floaty despite being infinitely better than they were even 7 years ago.
Gaijin doesn’t guestimate armor of classified tanks when they really should.
Gaijin will lock some small maps from high BRs while allowing arguably worse small maps.
The map voting system has allowed “western players” to downvote large maps to get them less often.
Gaijin applies the drag profiles of aircraft with pylons attached for the base flight model/doesn’t model pylon drag for pylons causing most aircraft to be slower than their real-life clean configuration.
There is no loadout lock functionality for matches [ironically this would allow Gaijin to add full AAM loadouts to aircraft and restrict the best AAMs from random battles].

This game is far better than all its competitors despite these flaws and many more.
All simulators are flawed. Games 10 years ago were far more flawed than they are today.
War Thunder 10 years ago was far, far more flawed than it is today.

34

What does War Thunder simulate?

35

shell shatter x20, jkjk, but not really the 20mm Hvap in general is just. abysmal

1 Like
36

You can call 1 -7 BR WW2 if you like or deny that it is or ever was but it is a time period where armour was king like it was in the days before the firearm or even the longbow.
Imagine putting guns into a medieval game a hundred years before they had them.
That is kind of what 1-7 BR feels like now.
CAS gets in the way of a good Ground game and now Artillery is spamming as well.
It makes the game hard to get into and enjoy anymore.
The game also chops and changes so much it must be really hard for a newbie to make any headway in it all.

1 Like
37

It would be fun for like 2 matches and then we’d all hate it. Unless you had to aim exclusively through the minimap, then it’d just be useless.

image

image

These two are the same BR, yet the tank on top can pen the HEAVY TANK on the bottom from any angle and any range, do it accurately from further away, and completely wipes the floor with any heavy tank near its BR.

An IS-3, on a downtier, can meet one of those and be a 2 shot kill from any angle or range. A T95 can never use its armor effectively unless its at VERY close range and even then it has a long, exploitable reload.

And guess what, you can’t move the Type 61 any higher because that’s where the much superior M47s and M48s are! This is THE definition of compression.

1 Like
38

isnt the highest KV-1 that german one with the 75 and the finnish one both at 5.0?

39

Other examples between 6.0 and 7.0:

Tiger II P and II H being the same BR, but P is too good for 6.3.

Same for the M26/T26E5 at 6.7, the M26 is too good for 6.3.

The T-44 suffers in a similar way as the M26.

The Jumbo is arguably overtiered (0.7 worse than T26E5, tiger II H and other 6.7s) at 6.3, but can’t go down because it’s better than the panthers.

I’m sure there’s a fair bit more.

1 Like
40

Of course I can see the good things about the game, but from my perspective, all I see are the things that make it frustrating. We don’t always notice the positive things, and while there are definitely some, we need to be loud about the stuff that’s wrong. It’s been proven that the louder we get, the faster things change. One comment rarely makes a difference, but when enough people speak out, it gets noticed.

I’ve actually sat in the back of the PBV 302 and aimed a Lvakan 48 myself. I’ve grown up with these things around me, so it hits close when I see them not done justice in a game I actually enjoy.

Rant

Sammanfattning

The Lvkv 42 and VEAK 40 are a perfect example. We created the Bofors L/70, and yet, the game treats it completely wrong. They’re using ammo that doesn’t even fit the cannon. The real Lvakan m/48 had a much higher muzzle velocity and could fire HE-T shells, but in-game, the ammo doesn’t even come close. Then after removing the HE-VT from the VEAK 40, it’s even worse. The performance now feels horrible compared to other vehicles like the M247 that still has that velocity and better rounds.

I actually have pictures from both the Lvkv 42 manual and the VEAK 40 manual that prove the muzzle velocity, clearly showing the 1000 m/s for the Lvakan m/48, and yet, the game’s representation falls way short of that. These images show the real numbers, and it just makes the discrepancy even more noticeable.

image image

But more than anything, the Lvakan 48 is the base for all L/70 guns in War Thunder, and seeing the nation who made it stuck with an incorrect version—while the other nations that bought and used the same gun get it right—really digs deep. It’s frustrating because I care about these vehicles. They’ve been a part of my life, and seeing them handled this way doesn’t sit right.

So yeah, I believe in my points and I talk about them because I want the vehicles I love to be done justice. It’s just hard when it feels like we’re being ignored.

But as for the br range. as a player that plays now not only sweden, but also japan, russia, germany, france, i can say that 3.7 to 4.7, 4.0 - 5.7, and 5.0-6.7 feels in large like the same brs the amount of tanks all very capable in different ways clash alot, some work alright while other times, everything just gets thrown out the window, or matchmaker. the 6.0 - 7.3 br is just in large part broken.

1 Like
41

From the time i joined War thunder one thing is very clear to me, This br range has gotten worse allot worse. From my expirence i can only say it has gotten worse allot worse from the premiums to the M44 to the KV-2 un-logical APHE removal this BR is hated by gaijin.

The "expirence

image
image1645×845 310 KB

42

Of course, it was by no means an extensive list. But even the T26E5, probably the most armored heavy tank at 6.7, capable of easily blocking shots from the long 8.8cm or even from the Ho-Ri’s high velocity 105mm cannon:

image
image1250×590 87.5 KB

…completely falls apart when faced with a Type 61 or a similarly armed vehicle.

image
image1212×620 88.7 KB

And at least against the upgunned M36s you can rest easy knowing that they’re pretty slow, have mediocre optics, are barely armored open tops, and they fire the much slower, lower penning M348 shell.
By contrast the Type 61 gets the much improved M431, it’s better in every aspect I mentioned above, and even has a very useful coincidence rangefinder to go with it.

43

You mean the premiums and artillery added in 2015 and prior…
Not only that but KV-2 APHE was worse than the SAP it has now.
M44 is quite literally just a SU-152 with a faster reload, no HEAT, and no armor.

The game has not changed based on your critique.

@karnitin75
Historical reports where necessary. Either way there will always be minor inaccuracies. Games can only get so accurate after all [Don’t look at Arma 3 if you care about accuracy].
I was taught compromise. My compromise is smaller game size without tank internals, and as accurate as possible with available information at the time. Bug reports can give them more information.

Just as you have info available to you, people at Gaijin have info available to them.

@PercussionCap
Type 61 and M36 both have 320mm pen on their HEATFS. Both are “relatively slow” and have “bad armor”.

44

Type 61 is not relatively slow with 19hp/t.

1 Like
45

i did a 1v3 in my Kv-2 wiht Tigers II the APHE was not worse then SAP and the M44 is a SU-152 with a faster reload? are we gonna ingnore that it was the speed of a light tank it has 15s reload compared to 27s and 17s at it’s br ?

2 Likes
46

Yes, both have good power to weight ratios.

@mm10000
18* second reload. Most people don’t ace crews let alone expert them.

47

So you agree they are not relatively slow?

48

Doesn’t chance the fact tho

49

M36s have the earlier 90mm M3:
image

Type 61 uses a modified 90mm M36 cannon from the M47 with higher penetration and much higher velocity:
image

As for speed. 0-45kph:
Type 61: 10.6s
M36 (Japan): 14.0s

Type 61 regularly keeps up with and even overtakes M41s until it reaches its top speed limit. It’s not slow by any means. M36 is almost 50% slower to accelerate to 45kph.

And while the Type 61 is no fortress, it isn’t an open top with a 6.5mm thick roof.

50

Heh, never noticed cause I saw 320 a few years ago then never looked again.
As for Type 61 and M36, both have been fast for me.
Both are of course unarmored compared to the ammo being fired at them.

And T26E5 is still OP despite facing HEATFS targets sometimes cause it’s a more stable platform than the wobbly tanks.

51

It could definitely use some reshuffling. Having played a substantial bit of 3.3-3.7 centered games lately, the amount of 4.0 vehicles that pack more punch than necessary has been… surprising to put it lightly! (say you’ve been getting curb stomped by KV-1Es and KV-7s every other match without saying it directly challenge)

52

“Fast” is subjective. Objectively, the M36 is much slower.

Unless you meet one of the many autocannon scouts or SPAAs. For example, the Type 61’s hull can stop a VEAK40 from the front at any range provided it isn’t firing down onto the UFP. By contrast the M36’s hull is an easy pen.

And of course overpressure is a thing. Sometimes an enemy HEAT shell just hits some ‘spaced’ armor and doesn’t go into the crew compartment, or hits an empty spot and hits no crew directly, or just doesn’t take out enough crew to count you as killed. On the Type 61 you survive, on the M36 you die.

It is inherently unbalanced that the best armored heavy tank of its BR has its armor completely trivialized from any angle and range, by a tank that cannot be moved up without completely ruining it.

1 Like