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.
They will ALWAYS be highly valued, highly important statistics. They correlate directly with reactivity.
I know those factors are still important, but larger maps introduce an element of chance. The chance that you’re hiding in one area with your M1, looking in one direction, can be fired upon from another by a T-72 that was standing in distant cover.
As the maps are now, it’s either quickly reaching the same four or five points and waiting for them to pass by, or going through the streets in CQC and hoping someone’s around the next corner.
Personally, I like using very different tanks with different capabilities, since using the same tank too much gets tiring, and I think that’s one of the good things about the game. Otherwise, this game would end up being 16 Leopard 2A7Vs versus 16 Leopard 2A7Vs.
Untrue unless you’re in CQC. At 500~ range much of the upper front plate has a good chance to resist DM23. Same for the turret.
The “better reload” is 7.8 stock crew vs 7 for the TURMS. Fully trained + Expert puts it at 6.4. Once again proving that you guys will always pretend the other tank is in the best possible situation while defending your own stuff.
@Necrons31467 “If I put it at point blank range they both can lolpen each other!”.
Also, I applaud you guys for focusing exclusively on one of the worst tanks to compare to a tank a whole BR higher. Not the other tanks such as the T80UD from which you moved on as quickly as you could.
Pretty much. It’s why when I stopped trying to use the T-90M like a slower T-80BVM, I started enjoying it.
Could be worse (M1 KVT)
There is no balance in this game. 2a4 was a good tank, but for so many years, a lot of different equipment has come out. And they don’t specifically update the indicators. Now 2a4’s enemies are armored by him and have a more powerful projectile. What balance to see, guys. Have you seen WinRate BMPT? 😂
My guy, I have very little “my own stuff”. Unlike you I don’t just tie myself to a single tree.
You can be a one trick pony, but don’t project that onto me.
why would you have a stock crew for a 10.7 rank 7 tank?
doesn’t exactly make your argument look good when you show the worst possible situation
I’m curious to try those two tanks and see how they perform in a match, but I’ve been too lazy to play the game lately. Between dealing with the constant penetration and damage errors I encounter, and trying to rank up all the nations at once by playing a fixed number of matches with all the tanks, reaching the top tier seems quite far off.
That’s the way to do it. No rush to get to top-tier.
T-72AV’s UFP offers around 370-380mm of armour against KE projectiles:
DM23 will penetrate 385mm of armour at 1500 metres.
If you believe 1500 metres to be ‘point blank range’ in War Thunder, you must be confusing it with some other game.
I addressed the tank that you brought up, you specifically mentioned the T-72AV.
I also addressed the T-80UD, in fact, that’s the very first thing I did in my reply.
Ironic, considering Renzo and I both play multiple nations, that stands in pretty stark contrast to what you play:
