This is because its a project tank that didn’t see service. The only reason it didn’t face them, is because they cancelled the project. So that isn’t a viable argument. Instead the argument is remove it from game because they removed it from russia.
-Its easily better than the Chieftan 3 and 5, which are the closest comparison vehicles to it.
-When compared to other heavy tanks in this game, its downteir performance is wildly better than any other heavy. At 5.7 a US 76mm can pen a Tiger 2 turret cheeks. At 7.7, a french 120mm has no chance of penning an obj 279 at point blank. Literally nothing except the commander hatch.
-Its armor weak points don’t include many OHK angles. Frontally all ammo locations are heavily resistant to 8.7-9.0 apfsds rounds and the driver eats most of the initial shrapnel generated from its UFP hits, meaning you need the primary round to pass through 3 crew in a single shot.
- Its gun is one of the best in the game for a heavy tank. Fire rate is extremely high for its caliber and APHE is better than APFSDS vs IFVs (and just about everything else).
-Its faster than almost any other heavy across any BR.
Its capabalities are wildly outside the average performance of heavies in this game. Its better than any armored tank at its BR which includes uparmored T62s and T55s
Idk what range your screenshots were set at, but at 1km the 279 can UFP the chieftan mk10. It doesn’t need to the lfp like your screenshots show. Meanwhile, the MK10 has to place shots and still struggles to generate a OHK. The 279 is EASILY on par with the MK10.
1 Like
You don’t need to press roll on to cap points without clearing the area first.
You both had an idea of where each other were and he fired first. Skill issue. Every heavy in the game can have the exact situation you posed with nearly any other tank of their own BR. Doesn’t mean they are weak.
1 Like
Which is actually interesting because the Chieftan Mk3 & Mk5 are missing their good ammo. The Mk5 is missing its L15A4 & L15A5 rounds which would easily pen the 279.
The L11 gun had APFSDS shells, but the snail has neglected to properly equip them (something that never happens to russian tanks).
76 can’t pen Tiger 2H from the front.
And while AMX-50 120 can’t pen Obj 279 from the front, it can the side.
Similar to how 5.7 mediums & heavies cannot pen Tiger 2H from the front, but only the side.
1 Like
I will further add. The Object 279s shells should only have a pen value of 280mm in game it is boosted to 364mm. This is off by 30%. Oddly enough its reload speed is also boosted by 30%.
The true values for the 279s shells at 1000, 2000, and 3000 meters:
0 degrees 180mm, 245mm, and 215mm.
30 degrees 240mm, 206mm, 175mm.
60 degrees 114mm, 97mm, 85mm.
Talk about giving it a performance boost, in game it sees much better performance.
There’s no evidence of a performance boost.
Thunderskill isn’t a source.
2 Likes
LOL look up my statcard and then we’ll talk. And recently I haven’t been even trying to actially get good results.
Excuse me?
Reload rate MAX should be 12 seconds. Sits at 8.6 seconds right now.
Ammo pen MAX should be 280mm. In game it sits at 364mm. Not to mention its shells perform horribly when armor is angled IRL. Reducing its pen to 80mm.
Also its acceleration is much faster than IRL, it should take 4 times longer to get to speed.
But you see no performance boost? It is seeing a 30% increase in its lethality.
You also understand it had cast armor not rolled right? So it would need to be thicker in order to get the same effects. Cast armor is a good 20% less durable.
Another user pointed out they use the Chieftan Mk3 and Mk5. This tank is missing its APFSDS and L15A4 plus L15A5 that its L11 gun could fire. The L15A5 outperforms the M-60 (279s gun) by a lot. At 60 degrees the Chieftan should have 76.5% better penetration. Funny enough at 0 degrees the Chieftan should have 355mm penetration (the 279 in game has 364 which it shouldn’t) so it should have the numbers the 279 is magically getting.
@Zephoid you actually have a right to be a little upset. Your Chieftan is not properly equipped, but had the snail done so you wouldn’t struggle vs the 279.
1 Like
It is fake. 77 battles is a good sample size. That’s probably over 12 hours of constant winning in an epic fashion but dying in the process almost in every battle.
G.55S - fake data too. I looked at 6 planes and found 2 with 100% fake data.
You guys should seriously see what kind of stats best WT players get, because you seem to be absolutely oblivious and think this game is swarming with people removing half of enemy team every match in an average plane.
Okay, first player I looked up
The blowout panels work for me and those who I face. Not sure what else to say on that.
I dont think you want to go down the rabbit whole of "if they could face it irl, they should face it in game. There are still t-34s in service today so I suppose we should move those up to top tier?
Edit: Now that I think about it, they did try historical matchmaking but it flopped because everyone would only pick the side with the good tanks which caused queue times to be rather long.
They dont have that in game for balance reasons. If they added it, spaa would receive a massive buff and I remember how much people hated spaa that could shred tanks, wirbelwind for example.
1 Like
Yes (alt + 9)
Who knows, in a few months it might be historically accurate for them to be fighting Leopard 2a5/6, Chally 2, and Abrooms!
Yeah and if you want to be generous and say “only fight things that they could see when they were still in production”, the po-2 was still being produced in 1952.
Failed at K/D metric, 23 is basically airfield camper/4-stacker territory). 2,3 KPB is “only” top 100 player result. 85% WR at 4.0 is 4-squadder territory. So the stats are again made up or absolutely worthless.
Do you seriously consider most of the Thunderskill players to be top 250 guys in WT, and mostly top 50?
Look at this forum, most poeple here are maybe top 10000.
Speaking of thinking skills, try a new simulation with a 105mm APFSDS and we’ll see. The spalling should not be absorbed, especially not when the round exits the fuel tank as it should create new spalling and burning fuel projection.
But yeah sure continue “explaining”.
Yes, that. 7.7 should not face a 279 as there is no way to pen it if you’re using solid shells. And don’t tell me to flank it when the tank has the mobility of a medium.
On the other side the 279 is obviously bad when it faces things that it cannot pen and just have to look at it in order to kill it.
1 Like