Massive understatement making the 2A4 seem worse than it truely is.
At least in GRB the 2A4 is considerably better than the T-80UD (however I do still think that the T-80UD should move to 10.7 after the buff).
1 Like
T-72AV for example? Which gets the 3BM42, with 452mm of pen? Which can lolpen the 2A4 basically everywhere? Or the T72B? Same thing?
Meanwhile DM23 can’t do that. At all. In a frontal engagement the T72B can vaporize the 2A4 with a hit basically anywhere. The 2A4 needs to aim for the drivers hatch, lower front plate, or turret ring. And then hope for the best. Funnily enough, a T72B can lolpen a T72B’s upper front plate in most areas.
And claiming “The T80UD will totally go up, any day now!” is ridiculous. Because it hasn’t gone up in ages. And even your fellow RUssian main disagrees and tries to downplay the tank. Russian stuff at 10x+ is consistently undertiered and facing enemies who are overtiered, artificially harmstrung, or both.
comparing the T-72AV to the 2A4 is even more hilariously one sided in favor of the Leo 2A4 lol.
6 Likes
T-72 has better armor, roughly 60mm more pen, frontally only has about two weak spots versus being able to lolpen and so on and on. Simply going “lol the tank with less pen, less armor, less survivability, less most everything is totally better!” isn’t an argument.
The leopard 2A4 can lolpen the entire hull of the T-72AV lol.
So the 2A4 is far more mobile (like, it isn’t even close), better firepower due to the better reload, better gun depression, better survivability and better horizontal/vertical targeting speed.
So yeah maybe this is just an GAB vs GRB disconnect moment, but for GRB the 2A4 is just so much better than the 72AV.
T-72AV is horror garbage, 2A4 is vastly superior in every way including firepower because 3BM42 uses worse modifiers against angles and composites not to mention a fixed 7 sec reload, the gun handling is worse, mobility is far worse and if you think the 2A4 is less survivable you are buggin
4 Likes
Atleast it isnt M774
Aaaaand thermals, acceleration, hull traverse, neutral steering, gun depression, turret traverse, crew count, ammo layout, gun vertical traverse and top speed, but other than all of that, nothing major ))))
Which the 2A4 lolpens.
Anyways, I have a common saying that applies to a large portion of this game’s community: ‘‘Poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of flat pen and frontal armour’’
I could add: ‘‘And underrate the importance of mobility and gun handling’’, but then the line gets pretty long and unwieldy.
In short: War Thunder’s meta = Mobility + First hit kill/cripple. The Leopard 2A4 will get to powerpositions significantly faster than any T-72 at or around this BR and it’ll be vastly more effective in such a position.
Complaining about a T-72AV from the perspective of a Leopard 2A4 is the definition of the ‘Grass is always greener on the other side’ phenomenon many one-nation mains suffer from.
Let’s bring in our trusty mobility chart in and see how these two compare:
(T-72A is applicable to T-72AV)
And that’s not even mentioning the vast gun handling differences, nor the reload rate advantage.
3 Likes
Yes, yes it does…just not in uptiers… same as every other MBT…
These ppl do not understand nuance.
Dates don’t matter. Performance does. M1 does fine. It could get M833, doesn’t exactly suffer now.
ALmost like they have a wealth of downsides to make up for the fact they have… a FEW upsides?
I don’t think it does?
Maybe you’re thinking of 3BM-15 and 3BM-22?
only 3BM46/60 use long rod modifiers
I’m comparing 3BM-42 & 3BM-60 performance vs composite armours and they yield identical results, the cheeks of an M1A1 provides 504mm against both shell types.
I’m also showing identical angles of attack at which both projectiles ricochet when striking the UFP, perhaps there’s something in the code, but I can’t replicate differences between their coding using in-game tools.
I think what’s happening is that the developers have essentially turned War Thunder into Call of Duty, prioritizing stats that matter most in close-quarters combat, like turret rotation, rate of flight, and forward/backward speed. This is why I believe Soviet tanks end up facing NATO tanks from previous years, using even older ammunition, simply because the maps don’t offer anything more advanced.
At least, since the M1 is BR 10.7, they should add the M833, as it’s only slightly better than the M774. In fact, I’m still waiting for the M833 in the M60 RISE (like in the Gulf War) and for the ERA module of the M60A3 to be an unlockable module (so I could remove it).
You’re right, they’ve changed 3BM42, it used to be worse against composites compared to 46/60 and the Chinese rounds.
idk when that happened because it’s a pretty big unannounced buff
Are you certain?
I can’t recall it having been any other way, but then again, my memory isn’t the best sometimes.
pretty sure
this only just puts it behind L26 when it was never that good, I’ll go fishing for old screencaps, maybe I still have something
These have generally speaking been the BRs for a long time. This is not some new development. The stats you mention have ALWAYS been extremely relevant and valued by high skilled players. You can out-manuever an enemy in your highly mobile MBT with a fast reload. You cannot make the gun depress lower on a T80 or make its turret turn faster, or make it reverse faster than 4kph.
What is your point?
Sure, but this is closely related to the maps. With larger and better-made maps, you can have more dynamic matches, where those crucial factors aren’t the key to the game.