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.
2 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.
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.