I’m not ignoring this. I’m saying that contemporaries at the same BR also have this issue, i.e, the 120S. The T-72AV lacks the reverse speed that 10.7s have- but that’s a reason why they are 10.7 and not 10.3. Which as I said before. Is a problem of Compression, not necessarily of BR.
You aren’t making sense here, in the whole bubble. (Quote is taken so you know which part I am referencing)
Not a huge enough difference. Neither tank is gonna get the heck out of the way before return fire hits.
In all, the T-72AV has problems. A lot of those problems are as apparent as they are because of COMPRESSION. Not because of BR. It is absolutely worthy of 10.3 As Solitaire-psn said;
It is meaningless to simply discuss whether a certain vehicle should belong to a certain BR, because the purpose of BR is to distinguish between the strong and the weak. As you can see, most vehicles in the technology tree have improved in one aspect, resulting in an increase of 0.3 br. However, transitioning from t72a to t72av only improves two aspects, but increases by 1.0br. How can this be explained?
How can the gap be large enough and what is worth 0.3BR? This is not something that I or any player can decide, but as players, we have the right to submit our own questions or suggestions
For example, with the addition of thermal imaging and 3bm42 to the T72a, some people may think that a certain vehicle should be upgraded by 0.3br because they are concerned about whether the thermal imaging is high-definition or low definition, and whether the tank’s exterior is covered with explosive reactive armor?
If someone currently thinks so, then T80UE1 should be increased by 0.3br, and the Chinese M60A3 without explosive reactive armor should be reduced by 0.3br. Obviously, this is because the above two can only be considered as the characteristics of a certain vehicle, and cannot be considered as reasons for increasing br
Or what magical effect did these two have on the T72AV that greatly enhances its combat effectiveness? So much so that it increased by an additional 0.3br? This reason is obviously far fetched, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many players who think the experience of using T72AV is not good
Can the gap be large enough and what is worth 0.3BR? This is not something that I or any player can decide, but as players, we have the right to submit our own questions or suggestions
For example, with the addition of thermal imaging and 3bm42 to the T72a, some people may think that a certain vehicle should be upgraded by 0.3br because they are concerned about whether the thermal imaging is high-definition or low definition, and whether the tank’s exterior is covered with explosive reactive armor?
If someone currently thinks so, then T80UE1 should be increased by 0.3br, and the Chinese M60A3 without explosive reactive armor should be reduced by 0.3br. Obviously, this is because the above two can only be considered as the characteristics of a certain vehicle, and cannot be considered as reasons for increasing br
Or what magical effect did these two have on the T72AV that greatly enhances its combat effectiveness? So much so that it increased by an additional 0.3br? This reason is obviously far fetched, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many players who think the experience of using T72AV is not good
The T-72AV has add-on armor (ERA), rounds, Thermals (and not just Gen1s- Gen 2 Thermals), and Optics. Oh. And Commander Controls. That is 5 things. 5 important things.
Another way to look at it is comparing it to the T-72B. It’s the same BR; in comparison to the T-72B,
T-72AV has better depression, better optics, commander controls, and a thermal imager.
T-72B has better armor and slightly better (and I mean 0.7 hp/ton) maneuverability.
It has as many advantages over the T-72B as the T-72B has over the T-72AV. Therefore, its worthy of being the same BR.
Perhaps the br is too dense, but I am only responsible for arguing that the difference in br between t72av and t72a at the current stage is too large, in order to illustrate that t72av at 10.3 is unreasonable. As for whether to increase the br of t72a or decrease the br of t72av, it is obviously not in today’s discussion because that is a matter for the future, and there is no need to conceive such a grand blueprint at this stage, because Rome was not built in a day
Is it possible to replace the era with a new one, which is not within the current range of changes in the br? Otherwise, why are T72B and T72B (1989) in the same br? Because a large number of vehicles have not changed their br due to the use of the new era, this aspect is not taken into consideration.
Because these vehicles replace ERA with ERA. The T-72AV adds on ERA, instead of just upgrading/sidegrading it.
Why? How is it too large? The way you are arguing for it, it feels like you are suggesting that the frame difference is too large. In other words, it would be like me saying that the 120S needs to be a lower BR because the M60 is 8.0 and a 2.3 BR gap is too large of a difference. Or the M60A3 TTS needs to be a lower BR because the M60 is 8.0 and that 1.0 BR gap is too large. You are considering the frames BR, or the T-72A, and suggesting changes off of that and its statistics rather than changes off of the T-72AV.
Instead of looking at the “frame” of the tank and comparing it to that (The T-72A), take a look at the other things at its BR. The T-72AV very clearly fits at the BR it sits currently, looking at the vehicle stats of it and other vehicles at the BR.
I almost forgot that the commander of the T72AV can control the cannon.
In theory, it is reasonable for the T72AV to be 1 br higher than the T72A, but the theoretical validity does not necessarily mean that it is feasible in practice.
At least from the evaluations of most players, the performance of the T72AV seems worrying. Of course, whether the specific BR of the T72AV increases or decreases depends on Gaijin’s meaning. I am just a questioner
As you said, why is China’s m60a3 without ERA, but in the same BR as the US m60a3? This means that increasing or decreasing ERA is relatively less included in the consideration of BR
I don’t agree with this statement. The 120s br design refers to the Turkey m60. The Turkey m60 is a later version of the m60. What should be compared most is the performance of the m60a3. After all, you can say that the 120s is the m60 chassis. I can also say that the 120s has an m1a1 head and fire control
What is the argument here? “3BM42 cant pen Leo2A4 turret cheeks ergo it should go lower”? Because if so, Leo 2A4 cant pen cheeks of TURMS neither.
Logic cant be applied only to specific cases how it suits you, it needs to be applied universally. If TURMS not being able to pen cheeks of Leo 2A4 is argument for it to go lower, using the same line of thought, Leopard 2A4 needs to go lower becasue it cant pen cheeks of TURMS.
shell simply isnt single defining characteristic of vehicles BR. If so, yet again, same logic must apply to all vehicles, not just the ones you want. using your very own line of thought - Leopard 2A4 has worse shell than TURMS, ergo it needs to be below TURMS.
inb4 someone says “you want leo2a4 to go lower???” no, i dont want. it sits perfectly fine.
Leo 2A4s gunner optic is also easy to damage. Same with Abrams turret ring. TURMS is not the only tank in game with weakspots.
it doesnt lack reverse nor it is impossible for TURMS to reverse at all. It reverses slowly, yes, and might not reverse in time, but its definetively not the case of “cannot retract in cover”.
and the upside is TURMS reload speed is consistent even if it loses its loader. Both Leo2A4 and Abrams have significantly worse reload time when their loader is taken out of action and cannot be replace.
okay so some people somewhere came to a conclusion, and you think rest of us should come to the same conclusion because…?
So? I also played TURMS for some 450 battles. On top of that I played Abrams, Leopard 2A4, M1128 and M60 AMBT.
I don’t know. Most likely it is because Gaijin takes a look at the player statistics and balances off of that. Quite frankly, I think its a valid reason for the Chinese M60A3 to go down in BR- but I do not control the BRs.
And the 120S is still 1.3 BR higher than the M60A3 TTS. And, yes, you can say that the T-72AV is a T-72A chassis. I can also say that the T-72AV has the fire controls systems, or one that relates to, that on the T-80U.
Every argument you have posed can be reconfigured for the T-72A and AV. So. Again. Fine where it sits.
Eh it could go down to 10.0, compression has gotten better, and the T-72A is at 9.3 with the exact same KE protection, being a lot more formidable for its BR.
120S basically gets everything handed to it while it loses mobility and hull armor.
It being rare or not doesn’t change literally anything.
AMBT has an upgraded engine so it has 22 HP/t which is much better than what TURMS has, while also getting some reverse speed as well.
KE-W at 10.0 surely isn’t just good at best as it basically can spank most things it sees, TURMS included. Gun handling of AMBT is also amazing and much better than what TURMS get, which is yet another advantage.
AMBT also gets gen2 thermals which is not that common at 10.0, especially for MBTs. From what I can see, it’s only con when compared to TURMS is armor, while it gets better mobility, gun handling and shell.
The T-72AV is a weak tank at the 10.3 BR. However, I don’t find this BR unreasonable for it.
Mobility is average: forward acceleration and speed are decent but reverse is terrible. Armour? Worse than most other MBTs at its BR, which is terrible since Soviet MBTs rely on their armour in War Thunder. Reload speed? Western contemporaries have 6.5 to 5 seconds reload to the ever constant 7.1. Vertical traverse is slow as can be expected, survivability is bad as expected.
The redeeming points are the 3BM42, good sights (both have optimal min and max zoom), and thermals with hunter-killer capability (2nd Gen for both gunner and commander).
It can be effective in large maps as a sniper, but is unsuitable for hilly terrain (due to 4 degrees depression), and mediocre at urban combat (due to lower traverse and reload speeds). In summary, a weak tank at 10.3, but fills a niche with its correct usage. A tank that is unfortunately at a large disadvantage on most maps in the game.
Dunno about that one. At 10.0 it would face tanks like A1A1 and between these two my money is on TURMS. 1A5 can at least fight back at range on relatively equal footing.
Yeah but then there’s the fact that the T-72A can see stuff like the M60A1 (AOS), atleast the A1A1 can actually fight back against a TURMS. Regardless, I think it could, should it? Idk tbh.
T-80UD and 2S38 to 10.7 tho-