Do that for T-55 (Finland), Merkava 2D and German T-72 please. With 279 shell.
Thanks.
Not very fair for the 279, is it? Of course the T-55 is mostly bushed up when I face it or angled, hardly my fault.
Why should heavy tanks be capping again? I’ll wait while you explain this one.
How do you outmaneuver a heavy tank with 15hp/t in a city? If you are getting flanked, thats because your situational awareness is at fault and the tank doesn’t matter. You OHK them better than any other tank in the game. You have a 1000m/s 360 pen APHE with 200g filler. If you can’t make one of the best rounds in the game work, thats on you.
Most APFSDS at 8.7 is ~330 pen. You have 360. If you can’t pen a T55’s 200mm turret with a 360 pen round, literally no one can help you and it doesn’t matter what tank you are in. APHE is SIGNIFICANTLY better than HEAT or APDS at killing merkavas, and you are trying to compare a heavy tank to a heavy multiple BRs above. Its like saying a 75 Jumbo struggles to kill a tiger P.
Across all heavies in this game, armor isn’t designed to be highly effective.The advantage of a heavy is that you can bounce a round AT ALL. Because if anything bounces, its likely whoever fired it is dead from your return fire. The OBJ 279 bounces rounds better than almost any heavy in the game and lacks almost all the detriments heavily armored tanks normally have.
I take it you haven’t played atgm vehicles if you are complaining about atgms ‘cripple’ you. They have 4-10 rounds, horrific velocity, difficult lead time, and are loud in the air giving plenty of time to dodge missiles. And they ‘cripple’ you. Oh no… almost like they are pretty ineffective.
HEAT will nearly NEVER penetrate an engine. structural armor is treated like spaced armor meaning that engines act like 1m air gaps with a structural plate. Unless a HEAT has 600+ pen, they will never go through and only 1000+ pen atgms reliably pen an engine.
This sounds like you have are both an inexperienced player and have a favorite tank that you want to protect at all cost. Your talking points are insane and specific points are highlighting vast inexperince. You understand the game from the OBJ279’s perspective with no experience vs it.
1 Like
It’s a 900 gram projectile, opposed to other APFSDS that’s 4-5kg projectile so it should be easier to reload.
The dart is 900 grams.
The Sabot + powder + casing adds more.
1 Like
You mean the design which cramps the tank in every aspect, leaving little to no “dead-space” for spalling to disperse with little damage, (as is more commonly found in spacious NATO MBTs) leaves fuel tanks (which absorb spalling) taking up a larger percentage of the internals?
Like, fuel tanks which absorb spalling? Take up more space internally? Because the tank is smaller and more cramped?
It’s not a biased mechanic, as you suggested, it’s something that happens in real-life.
This is not an exact simulation of what you describe, but feel free to make your own as proof of your claims.
The Bradley’s round is decelerated to 65m/s while only being partially through the fuel tank, and absorbing almost all spalling.
Without the fuel tank, the simulation estimates the round travelling at 200m/s and no spalling captured.
Hence ‘projectile’ and why I compared it to other projectiles which would scale even worse because it would require larger casing.
Either way the shell is atrocious anyways so I wouldn’t be motivated to load it either.
drivers optics may eat HEAT rounds, but not APHE rounds. The entire turret ring area is pennable and that vaunted turret armor…
Lets just say it has a few holes.
Meanwhile the chieftan’s APDS round is within 20 pen effective of bouncing off that ufp. Yeah, it shows green, but any angling at all and thats bouncing. The whole lower turret is a fake weak point, there are multiple plates there that eat rounds. Top turret is asking for a ricoshet with apds.
These are trade-offs in design.
Russian tanks are smaller, harder to hit, lighter. And have fuel tanks, which decelerate rounds drastically, and catch a lot of spalling, taking up a higher % of the internals.
NATO tanks are larger, with generally more armour, better crew comfort, general internal space, and internal “dead-space” for spalling to dissipate. But because it’s larger, fuel tanks (which catch spalling and decelerate rounds) take up a smaller percentage and so incoming shells are less likely to hit them.
I feel like I have to constantly repeat this as you lack some thinking skills (ehj78)
Alright, so heavy tanks and medium in the case of M4A2.
M6A1 has the highest at 3.72:1. Mostly played at 4.7.
Object 279 is at 2.82:1 mostly played at 8.3 [so it’s back to no real change].
KV-1E at 4.1:1.
M4A2 at 3.3:1.
Jagdpanzer IV at 3.31:1.
IS-4M with 2.58:1.
Conqueror: 2.92:1.
It is my conclusion that Object 279 is balanced
More balanced than M4A2, KV-1E, Jagdpanzer IV, and M6A1.
Almost as balanced as IS-4M.
And as balanced as Conqueror.
Chieftain Mk10 uses APFSDS BTW.
Why is everyone, including yourself, bragging about its superior mobility then?
It was on Japan, uneven terrain bad for russian cannons, houses, rocks and bushes blocking my sight. By the time I faced that AMX-10 thing he zapped my breech instantly and my 14.5 only “knocked out” 2 crew. Many deep enough crevices for a gokart to vanish in.
No matter what tank I play, my shots are a guaranteed bounce or nonpen on a T-55, turret and everything else. Blame the snail for that.
Shot turret, shot ufp, shot lfp. Bounce, nonpen and then I died.
Well, why is the 279 forced into such a fight then? 9.7 uptiers are pretty much the default now, I had 3 in a row yesterday before I gave up.
Don’t apfsds have the best angular pen of all munitions?
Fair enough.
Dodge? I quit right back to the hangar before it was halfway towards me.
Hürtgen Forest, somewhen this week. Go to the Public replays. You want proof, go get it yourself.
A trade off that in the game isn’t modeled because, while the fuel tanks first round will eat the shell. The vehicle would be down on fuel, and the tank would be empty. So the second round should pass right though. We don’t have to worry about fuel in this game in RB. But it is something to consider when balancing the imaginary unlimited fuel vs fuel tanks eating rounds.
Are we just going to ignore the ones with toilets? Toilets add +10 xp.
but the mk10 is a higher BR. so my comparison was with the 279’s contemporary mk3 and 5.
I assume those numbers are kdr? idk what else to conclude.
A bunch of things have happened in the past few months:
ATGMs recieved a huge nerf and many retain crosshair bugs that render them nearly unusable. Best ATGM carrier of the BR (ATF09) also got its velocity dropped by 40%.
A bunch of IFVs and APCs got upteired in addition to the recent blanket upteir. Rooikat 105, PTL, and WMA. So all of them have seen a huge drop in popularity.
So right now the 279 had the best of its competition nerfed while being easily the best armored vehicle of the BR range. Any wonder why its dominating now?
1 Like
Also none of this accounts for the barrel collision not being a thing. The 279 would be in trouble in the city, vs tanks with smaller barrels. Barrel collision would add a world of balance to this game honestly.
1 Like
Which proves the 279 should stay 8.7.
Everything you said means the 279 doesn’t fight vehicles it easily killed in the past.
Meaning it now faces far more armored targets which are more difficult to kill.
Again, this just screams inexperience. Play with ANYTHING you mention and i assure you, you will find they aren’t very good.
Heavy tanks don’t first cap at any BR. Your speed is relevant for pushing tanks after you hit their barrel or to pull back after your turret gets hit. Both are incredibly important.
T55s armor is literally fodder for every round type at its BR. Its effective against autocannons, which is something at 8.0, but no main gun is reliably bouncing. This is on you.
The merkava is designed to have a confusing armor profile with many high angle areas. However, it has a lot of small weak points and APHE is going to mean you need to hit it once for a kill rather than most APFSDS needing 2+.
Sounds like you drove out into an obvious forward location on japan, were spotted before you identified the AMX-10, and had no team support. So bad positioning and lack of situational awareness. Literally no tank is going to save you from that.
Yes, APFSDS have good slope modifiers. However, even with APFSDS there is a huge portion of your tank that is immune or will generate ricoshets from apfsds. Nearly no other tank at that BR has that advanatage. Plus your side armor is incredibly trolly and will bounce even extremely high pen rounds off anything but very high on the shoulder.
Play the game more. Play other nations. Try the vehicles you are extoling. Trust me, you will see how easy you have had it.
1 Like
That is actually incorrect. The problem is that the 279 project was cancelled due to all kinds of issues. Issues like it not being able to cross russian bridges due to its weight so it couldn’t be used for homeland defense. Issues like the IT-1 missile system being favored as a more lethal platform.
The average service life of a Tank is around 20 - 30 years. So lets say it had an average service life. Many of the tanks it faces in game were already replaced after the Korean war with much better variants. The 279 would be facing more of the T72M1 Swedish and the Leopard 2 fairly regularly as they would have existed in its service life.
Would have, but they didn’t. Case closed.
It was a Cap, you are supposed to go there. (A point)
I had a very good idea of where he was thanks to engine sounds. But his dart disabled my gun instantly so I was a goner.
Only if I get the 3 German Tanks in return.