Remove Heat and go back to 7.7, fair enough
It gave Germany an incredible buff at 6.7 since the 6.7 lineup wouldn’t face as many early MBTs and IFVs. Gaijin just needs to decompress the 7.3-9.7 BR range soon because that will solve the issues you have.
Just because it doesn’t have good TS stats, doesn’t mean that it si a bad tank. I’ve played it, and I think it is quite good, but we just need decompression.
Don’t you dare say that Germany suffers. Either way, it is an upgrade over the 4.0 model, and it fits into the 4.3 lineup well.
2 Likes
Since last BR changes Germany stop exist between 7.0 to 7.7 so that hole is filled mostly by 6.7 so now you face most uptier than before with teams composed by 1 or 2 7.7 and the rest are 6.7 or lower. That changes was a huge nerf for Germany.
Agree, but the decompression is not the only issue here, the lack of vehicles and poor lineups are worse problem.
Is not bad but is not a superior combat machine, this tank need long range and open maps for shine but Gaijin is destroying every no urban “cuz reasons”.
This another Panther 2 case, Gaijin is destroying every chance of movility for germany . T34 is practically the only good close combar brawler available, the rest are tanks designed for long range combat.
Move this tank to 4.3 when the average of germany tank in that range is 30% or lower is just insane.
Is like move Abrams up right now when his average win ratio is 40%.
I dont know why Gaijin are trying to nerf so hard mid ranks for germany probalby the want puss up the massive germany player base to top tier where is the money.
It sucks. It’s just too much zoom. If it was a 4-8x like on the Type 61, or 4-12x like on the Leo 1A5 it would be GREAT… but it isn’t. Your minimum zoom is already overkill for 95% of the map on any map.
It does not take that long. You get into a nice position, you pre-adjust it (which takes all of a few seconds) and then you’re a straight upgrade over the Leo 1.
Type 74 actually has higher p/w, and I decided to test their time to reach 50kph - Leo1 did it in 14.3s, Type 74C in 12.2s. And yes, I re-ran the Leo1 test after that to make sure, and both are spaded. So the only time a Leo1 is gonna beat a Type 74 anywhere is if it can stay above that 50kph the whole time (as the Type 74 tops out at 53kph) to compensate for its poorer acceleration.
The reverse and top speed ARE worse, but it’s a tiny disadvantage vs better acceleration, a stabilizer, a laser rangefinder, a .50cal, better protection everywhere…
The Leo 1 is a one trick pony and with both the OF-40 at the same BR as it w/ LRF, AND the STB/ 74C just one step above it, it’s not even the best at it.
6.8-8x is perfectly useable out to 1000m+, and you get a coaxial 20mm which will chew up any lightly armored target you come across, like all those extremely annoying SPAAs cosplaying as tank destroyers.
either the Leo goes down or all better performing 7.7 (all the OP french tanks) need to straight go to 8.0 aswell.
What team ??? Wiesel is the only German tech tree tank at 7.3 lol.
Well this is clearly personal preference, as I for one and at least one other person posted after me both agreeing that the 8-16x is a major advantage that the Leopard 1 has. I was incredibly annoyed when Gaijin nerfed the 16x on the Type 74 series and left us with just the fixed 8x. Its also why I much preferred the 8-16x fitted STA-3 over the Type 61 when I spaded those tanks (until they nerfed that too). I even preferred playing the STA-1 and 2 over the Type 61. Those two are now the final holdouts of Japanese MBTs with the glorious 16x zoom.
No it doesn’t take very long, but it takes more time than the 0.0 seconds the Leopard 1 takes. The lack of elevation without setting up the suspension is also a suprising issue that you don’t ever think about until you realise you don’t have enough and now have to rock BACK on the suspension to get the gun up to shoot helicopters or even stuff like enemy tanks when you’re pointing downwards on a slope. Dont get me wrong, I love the Type 74s, they were the entire reason I originally ground out the japanese tech tree, but the suspension is both an advantage AND a disadvantage at the same time. Not having to deal with it makes the Leopard more robust.
I tested this as well in the test drive, and got almost identical results to you. I also for science tested the time to do a stationary 180 degree turn for both tanks, The Leo was 5.1 secs and the Type 74C was 5.0 secs, which Id consider within the margin of error of reaction speeds starting/stopping the timer etc to call it identical. Both tanks are also spaded
I also tested the AMX-30(1972) which I haven’t unlocked but can test drive, set to reference in the test drive it managed 15.7 seconds 0-50kph. for the 180 degree spin, It cannot neutral steer, and only managed 7.1 seconds to rotate (with the lack of neutral steering being a big drawback).
Type 74s definitely got a big helping hand with the engine power buff a few months back. But the Reverse speed honestly is a major upside, at least for my playstyle.
The Type 74 is, I remind, 0.3 higher and is so for a reason. I am barely in rank 3 for Italy so cannot comment on the OF-40, however I can comment on the American M60 which is also 8.0, also doesn’t have a stab, does have a .50 cal but it is kinda useless for the biggest benefit of .50 cals being shooting planes and helis due to it being in that enclosed turret, has “more” armour which honestly is still pretty irrelevant for the BR, but suffers for it by being MUCH SLOWER. (and has the slow reverse speed). Yet no one seems to be complaining about that one despite the fact its definitely inferior to the Leopard 1.
But lets look at what’s at 7.7 to compare it to. Is the Leopard 1 really equivalent to an M48A1 with its low post pen HEATFS, or a T-54(1947) with its horrible 11 deg turret traverse and a pathetic 230mm pen? or a Centurion Mk3 which is slow as balls and has to deal with the mess that is low calibre APDS (that shatters on a Leopard 1s gun mantlet)
I’d consider the Leopard 1 to be easily superior to all of these vehicles. Id consider it superior to the 8.0 M60, the 8.0 T-54(1949) and the 8.0 Type 59 as well, though I haven’t played either of the latter two. Id even consider it equal or slightly better than the 8.0 Centurion Mk10 and the Vickers Mk1 (both of which I’ve played, but haven’t spaded either yet). If the OF-40 is that much better than the Leopard 1, then maybe thats more of an argument for the OF-40 to go up than the Leopard to go down IMO.
For reference, I unlocked and spaded the Leopard 1 after it had been moved to 8.0, had absolutely zero issues, did not feel in the slightest like the tank was under performing at the BR, and finished off with a 2.08 KDR and a 60% win rate which was honestly slightly above my average for that BR range.
edit: I have just tested in the acceleration test a bunch of other vehicles for some comparable data:
M551 Sheridan (8.3): 17.0 seconds
Type 87 RCV(P) (7.7): 9.8 seconds
AMX 13 90 (7.7): 16.5 seconds
EBR(1963) (7.7): 12.2 seconds
Fox (7.7): 7.5 seconds
Marder 1A3 (8.0): 18.2 seconds
DF105 (8.0): 11.9 seconds
M60 (8.0): 17.2 seconds @48kph Max speed
Vickers Mk1 (8.0): 18.6 seconds @48kph max speed (Surprised this was slower than the M60 actually)
T95E1 (8.3): 25.8 seconds.
M3 Bradley(8.3): 12.9 seconds
TO-55 (8.0): 19.0 seconds
OF-40(MTCA) (9.0): 12.2 seconds
M18 Hellcat (6.0): 9.7 seconds
Type 10 (11.7): 10.1 seconds
Type 93 (9.3): 6.8 seconds
All tested on the straight bit of road on the test drive map going north, starting just past the burning buildings because there are some bits sticking up that causes some tanks to bounce a bit and slow them down.
lmfao
1 Like
4-8x is an upgrade. They’re actually useable outside of very long range situations.
16x zoom that you will never put to good use due to low shell velocity and maps that generally don’t allow you to be useful at long range.
And if you need any more depression than what the Leo1 has, whatever shuffling you’re gonna have to do will take far longer than the 2s for the type 74 to adjust its suspension. Time that it can easily gain back by not having to wait for the gun to settle and using its LRF instead of the optical rangefinder on the Leo1.
You can also use positions the Leo1 can only dream of using due to much better depression possible.
That can be entirely prevented by thinking ahead, and helicopters will find the roof mounted .50cal much more dangerous than the 7.62mm MG3.
Haven’t gone down USA ground yet, so can’t entirely relate. But the M48 C and G feel equally dreadful due to low speed and unstabilized guns. Italy does get an M47 with the 105mm gun, if it handles anything like the japanese standard M47 it’ll be a very good tank.
Ground at that BR really needs a lot of decompression, as the T-55AM is right there at 8.7 with a whole buncha stuff that 7.7s and 8.0s really don’t want to meet.
OF40 going up would also make no sense, as now the Type 74 is right there at its BR with the same shells and better in every other regard. Move the Type 74 up and now it’s competing against T-55AMs with darts and composite armor.
So eventually you get to the point where the real issue with ground is this:
I don’t think anyone is going to claim that the Leo 2A5 and 2A7 have identical performance, yet they’re at the same BR. This applies to other nations too of course.
Whenever I play it, it’s always a big load of “I wish I was in a Type 74 right now” because I don’t have X Y Z things.
1 Like
Yes, very clearly a personal preference difference then. 4x isnt enough, and 8x is only just enough at the BRs those tanks sit. I often play long range, and completely avoid going into cities or close quarter fights if I can. So Id say the zoom being good or bad is irellevant to its BR.
Also adjusted by the fact the Leo can peek and move with no fiddling if you need more than -6 degrees but less than -9, plus the reverse speed being so much better meaning it can fire and retreat quickly, which is a big issue with the Type 74, you can peek up, fire, and be too slow to fully back down below the ridge before a return shot comes your way.
Type 74s also lose mobility if you drive off without levelling the suspension.
I dont like the M48s. They are sluggish, the gun has low post pen due to that HEAT shell. The armour is pretty meh at the BR. They just feel uninteresting to play. The M60 fixes some of that with the 105mm gun, but not the sluggishness and the meh armour is now worse. The M60A3 AOS gets a stab and is pretty good, but still sluggish while now being 8.3 with no LRF.
There definitely is some compression, though you are pretty much never going to get everything 100% balanced properly so its all 100% equal. The M60 is definitely inferior to the Leopard 1, but its definitely not “drop to 7.7” inferior. The Type 74C also definitely isnt 8.7 good. (And the STB doesnt even have a HEAT shell anymore).
Funny, I never thought that. I play it completely different to the Type74s. I play those as sort of second line ridgeline sniper tanks, whereas I play the Leo as basically a bigger light tank and flanker. That said most of my games in the Type 74s were pre engine buff, and I think I had spaded them all before they even lost their 16x zoom and reverse speed - except the C which was added after I had gotten the E/F and I think after the nerfs.
It doesn’t need long range maps to do well, it just excels in them. It does fine on medium range/smaller maps due to its high mobility and decent reaction time.
4.3 Germany is probably one of the best lineups in the entire game, so it having a low winrate is because the players aren’t that good.
The only issue i have with the leo 1 is apds being apds.
French tanks aren’t anywhere near OP. The leopard is just better than them. They are very weak against armoured vehicles, and they are also quite easy to kill.
If they went to 8.0, then they would be 0.3 BR lower than the Turm III, and 0.7 lower than the Tam and T-55AM-1. The BRs are too compressed to move them up.
1 Like
I got the same problem with grinding Israel at 7.7, uptier and Leopard 1, Wiesel, BMP’s and so on. Moving this Leopard lower as 8.0 is poorly considered.
Funnily enough I’ve never experienced issues with the L7:s APDS shells. I always take the sabot over HEAT, mainly due to higher velocity (flatter trajectory) and (in my experience) better post pen damage. I know people shit on all APDS’s post pen damage but I’d say there’s a day and night difference between early tungsten carbide APDS and later variants, like the ones fired from the British L7 gun and its derivatives.
1 Like
…How is the Wiesel a problem?? Your horde of M48s and M60s can’t survive a puny little 20mm?
You forgot about the ALM-90, even 20mm can destroy.
“.50cals”
The day I shot my Centurion Mk.10’s APDS round at a Raketenautomat and only injured his gunner is the day I completely said NO to the round, at least HEATFS will dispatch of these light vehicles consistently :/
The AML-90 has a 90mm and is a serious threat to any M48 or M60 variant it sees. The Wiesel can’t even pen them from the side.
The AML is ONE vehicle in the israel tree that is chock full of far more armored tanks.
1 Like
and why?