Leopard A1A1 is 9.0 but the T-55AM-1 and the T-55AMD-1 are 8.7

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
306

No, they did not. The AMX 40 as well as the AMX 32s and some AMX 30s protos (Gaijin please i have the suggestion for the first of the series pending) that did not get adopted got two plane stabilizers with hunter killer function for the commander. Problem is Hunter-killer got so emphasized in export marketing (as most others competitors only had just a stabilizer and no hunter killer early in the program), the full details of the system got lost in translation. This translation problem got sloved for the AMX 40 but did persist for the previous tanks. Then people extended the whole thing to service versions of the AMX 30 and it just spinned out of control.

TL;DR : No. You are confused due to (the usual) mixing up different systems on different variants of the AMX 30. There are stabilized AMX 30s but none are in the tech tree

307

Is the AMX-30 Super not specifically given a two plane stabilizer as part of its modernization

308

Among others but it is not the only AMX 30 that got one

However, there’s still this urban legend fo “the french had a different stabilisation system”. No. It was the same as everyone. But did not get adopted due to budget cuts

309

COTAC?

310

It’s not. It can co-exist with a stabilizer but by itself COTAC does not do it.
You need extra electronics, but due to budgets cuts these were cut. However, GIAT still played with stabilizers when making the AMX 32s and later the 40 (and some AMX 30s that led to the dev of the X32s).

The army adopted AMX 30s (B2) only got COTAC, without a stabilizer. (budget cuts…).

I will repeat it just in case : COTAC does not stabilise the gun by itself, however it supports integration of one. This function was tested on AMX 30s (3 different that i know of) but not adopted due to budget cuts. The AMX 32s and 40 are exemples of tanks that did not get impacted by budgets cuts (export protos get all the cool stuff) and hence feature the stabilizer that you do not have on COTAC-only AMX 30s

311

Fixed it for you.

Engagements in this game beyond 300-400m are pretty common. Don’t know what you are on about. This is my last time telling you this.

Tank A can perform an action better than tank B = Tank A is more efficient and effective at doing said action
Once again, easy concept you seem unable to grasp.

312

Versatility is not determined by being the best but by being able to do the most.

The AMX-30B2 Brenus can do all of the things I listed.

313

Versatility is measured by the fact how many things you can do optimally, and that is the problem for AMX-30s.
Only role they can perform while not being sub-par at it is sniping, because, you know, lack of stabilization plays a role even in sniping, let alone in other, more aggressive playstyles.
This automatically takes away from it’s versatility.

Any tank can do everything, but that doesn’t mean it will be on-par with other vehicles at doing that.

314

If a tank’s armor can not withstand machine gun fire it most certainly is not a brawler.

If a tank can not move fast enough to obtain a position before it is taken by the enemy team it will only be able to flank when the position has become irrelevant.

If a tank is unable to compete with other tanks at its battle rating with accuracy and round performance its role as a sniper will be heavily reduced making it better spent elsewhere.

The AMX-30B2 Brenus excels at sniping, can brawl as effectively as other medium tanks of its BR range, and can flank as efficiently as other medium tanks of its BR range excluding the A1A1 which matches its speed / fire power but has a two plane stabilizer.

The Brenus is 8.7

The T-55AM-1 is 8.7

The M60A1 RISE (P) is 8.7

Why is Germany’s modernized cold war tank not at the BR range where every other modernized cold war tank is placed

315

Because it is better than them! How many times are we going to go around and around this point? You even tacitly admit as much throughout this thread.

Your own distaste for them doesn’t discount the fact that the M60 and Centurion derived tanks make up a sizable proportion of the 8.7 MBTs, with many of the others being similarly poor in comparision to the A1A1 (Cheiftans, T-62, ZTZ59D1, Object 435, etc). Really, the only ones that are close are the Type 88s

Date of introduction, and what vehicles a certain tank was designed to face, have no bearing on what BR it is. All that matters is how strong it is in game. The A1A1 has everything it needs for it’s playstyle to make it substantially better than all other 8.7 MBTs by a substantial margin. It belongs at 9.0 on the basis on it’s own strengths and weaknesses.

Let’s take a different approach and compare the A1A1 to other 9.0 MBTs. Surely, if you contend that it belongs at 8.7, that means that it’ll be clearly weaker than the 9.0s?

First we have the TTS(s). Such poor tanks that Gaijin is literally restructuring the tech trees to put vehicles behind them in order to convince peope to play them. No content.

Then the XM-803, which post the dart nerf is just pretty sad. Still, nice to see something that can actually compete with the A1A1’s mobility. But yeah, equal mobility, worse firepower. It’s a wash.

Then the T-62M-1. Like the T-55AM-1 on a better chassis with a better gun, yet still held back by the slower mobility, worse turret traverse and gun depression. It’s close, but I’d still go with the A1A1.

Then the Cheiftan Mk 10. Hah. Maybe in a different meta. No contest.

The later Type 74s are a good matchup. Similar mobility forward, but much worse backwards after the nerfs. Worse gun handling, effectively worse gun depression when you don’t have the time to use the suspension. Better firepower. LRF. Similar armor. I’d maybe give a slight edge to the 74s, but it’s still close. The A1A1 is more comfortable to use due to the reverse speed and accessible gun depression.

The OF40 Mk2 is also close. A slightly slower, slightly larger Leopard but with a LRF. Similar to the 74s, I’d say it’s arguably better, but again, it’s totally close enough to share a BR. Italy needs every W it can get.

And finally we get to the Magach 6M. And we’re back to no contest.

So there we have it. At 9.0, we have 3 tanks that arguably beat it, 2 tanks that are too close to call, and 5 that are so much worse it’s no contest. Sounds to me like a pretty balanced tank.

316

Yes if you completely ignore how the game is designed and played.

Excepting firepower / brawling / long range engagements

317

Only thing wrong about that is the fact it can’t.
Lack of stabilization is a huge deal and will negatively affect basically every playstyle, including sniping as well, which is the most stationary playstyle you can have.

You are still trying to downplay the importance of stabilization, and by a massive amount.

Because it’s better than tanks you just described ?
It’s so simple, but yet you fail (or don’t want to) to acknowledge what literally everyone has been telling to you in this thread.
Simply put, why should A1A1 be at the same BR as AM-1 or M60 RISE, when it has almost everything going for it.

Nope, you are the one who is completely ignoring that when you continue to downplay the importance of stabilization and mobility, which basically is the WT meta at the moment.

318

Why bother writing a rebuttal if it doesn’t even cover the argument you’re rebutting?

Only the Type 74s best it outright in firepower, and even then only marginally. The difference between Type 93 APFSDS and DM23 is close enough that you won’t notice it outside of a handful of targets (mostly the UFP of some later Russian MBTs) . The Cheiftan and T-62 both have better rounds, but pay for it in a longer reload (Much longer for the T-62), while the Cheiftan’s weaknesses in every other aspect still make it a far comparision.

Which of the 9.0 tanks best it at brawling? The only one of them with armor that can actually defeat darts is the Cheiftan’s turret, while the entire hull is an easy pen. Everyone else is just as vulnerable when brawling, and that’s not even the strength of the Leopard.

And it’s more accurate to say that the Leopard suffers in very long range engagements. Darts are not at all hard to aim at anything under 1 km, and the standard range finder will cover you up to 2 km, which as previous discussed is plenty for most maps, and can be easily avoided on every other map but Fields of Poland.

A LRF can actually slow down your reaction time, since while it’s quick it’s not instant. I’ve caught people at close to medium range taking the time to LRF me instead of just taking the shot, which gives me the time I need to react and kill them without the LRF. If you’re playing the Leopard properly (behind a defilade, spotting targets with binos, ranging them via binos, then pushing out for the kill), the lack of an LRF won’t slow you down much at all. And you still hold advantages over all but two of the 9.0 contemporaries which make up for this slowness.

319

Because your argument that the A1A1 should be 9.0 ends and begins that it has a better engine than any other 8.7 medium tank

You don’t take in to account Germany’s functional lineups or the A1A1’s negatives

Hyper focusing on one aspect of a rather bland tank that’s benefits begin and end at the ability to fire accurately while moving ~10KM/H faster than its counter parts

If everyone in this thread is going to repeat for the ~300th time that the A1A1 has a better engine than other medium MBTs then I will discount their argument because I’ve already addressed it ~50 times stating my opinion on it.

Speed is good

Speed does not make a tank overpowered in its own right

The A1A1’s mobility does not eclipse 8.7 tanks

There has to be a “best” medium at 8.7, there is no reason it can’t be the A1A1

320

War Thunder’s meta depends entirely on the tier of which you are playing

High tier armor is less relevant and positioning is key

Mid tier mobility is king

Low tier armor / fire power is equally important with mobility only mattering if your firepower can defeat the armor of tanks at your BR range

Yes the A1A1’s mobility is better than other 8.7 medium tanks

No this does not mean it can’t be the “best 8.7 tank” in terms of mobility especially taking in to account Germany’s lineup potential being removed with little reasoning outside of “this tank will go 10KM/H faster than the other tanks at its BR”

321

A1A1’s differences compared to some 8.7 mediums don’t just stop at better mobility.

Lineups shouldn’t be considered when balancing vehicles.

And A1A1 is in the tier where speed is meta.

322

If that’s all you’ve gotten from my comparisons of the A1A1 to the 8.7s and 9.0s, you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith. Your central contention for why the A1A1 should move down is that you want to play it in an 8.7 lineup. That’s what’s you’ve circled back to when pressed.

Doesn’t matter that it’s better than the 8.7 MBTs.

Doesn’t matter than it’s completely solid compared to 9.0 MBTs.

All that matters to you is that it used to be 8.7, and isn’t anymore. Ignoring the fact that almost every single 8.7 in the game also moved up to 9.0 in the same patch. Most of 9.0, 9.3 and 9.7 saw the same jump. 10.0 and above got that treatment in an earlier patch. Effectively meaning it’s fighting exactly the same tanks it was previously in everything but full downtiers.

In fact, the core of your complaint here about the German 8.7 lineup centers around the remaining two 8.7 tanks that inexplicably weren’t moved up to 9.0 in the same patch, despite arguably deserving it (Definitely so in the case of the TAM).

And so instead of enjoying these overlooked tanks at their lower BR, or simply uptiering them to be back amongst their previous counterparts at 9.0 while playing the A1A1, you instead insist that the A1A1, among the strongest MBTs at that BR, and clearly better than the 8.7s, should be moved back down to join it’s overlooked bretheren.

Can you objectively state what it is you think makes the A1A1 weaker than the TTS? Than the Magach 6M? Than the 803? What makes it special when it comes to 8.7 MBTs that were uptiered to 9.0 that make it nessesary to downtier it? Don’t talk about the lineups, as no nation is guaranteed lineups at any given BR, and not having a lineup is no excuse to downtier a powerful vehicle. And don’t say LRF, as has already been beaten to death in this thread. You cannot on one hand claim that the lack of a stabilizer on the AMX-30 Bs is no issue, and yet the lack of a much less nessesary gimmick is utterly crippling on the Leopard.

323

I don’t make this claim.

I make the claim that the Brenus can be played around it utilizing its other features as strength.

Unlike the Brenus the A1A1 does not get an ERA packed or soft kill APS

It does not have a 20mm coax or even a .50cal

It doesn’t have a laser range finder which no matter how much skill you profess will come in to play on maps which are large

Yes this is a major issue present in War Thunder that is overlooked by Gaijin. Not being able to field a full lineup is I would argue the main cause of ODL and the main contributor towards poor win rates for multiple nations who otherwise have very effective vehicles.

324

Something has to be the best at mobility.

325

Can be played around !== optimal
Having no stabilization is probably the worst thing to have in a tank of this BR, then arguably mobility is the second most important thing.

I highly disagree, ODLs mostly happen at higher tiers where people buy their way in, either with premiums or squadron vehicles.
Before the decompression, arguably the worst BR range in terms of ODL was 9.3 - 10.0, because so many really popular premiums sat there, which meant people playing them had basically nothing else to pick from (unless they want to bring reserve vehicles).

ODL is mostly a side effect of Gaijin’s business model regarding premium vehicles. Quite a bit of people are using high tier premiums to effectively grind out the whole TT, since premium bonuses are pretty huge to say the least.