Again, I am saying the MBT-70 and XM803 should both stay at the BRs that they are at. The KPZ-70 should go to 9.7.
I just want em fixed, ESPECIALLY if they get moved up.
the armor is reeeeeeeeeeeeeally bad
Understandable, I’d like them fixed and not moved up.
That or at least for gaijin to give them the HE because HE slingers are memes and I love slinging explosive bricks at people and accidentally killing them when it hits something that I was not aiming at.
Better armour than the Leopard 1a5. xD
1 Like
The LRF is a huge improvement and 3BM42 dors nore reliable spalling than 3BM22.
Doesn’t the MBT-70 series get the 152mm HEAT the Starship gets? If yes you can use that shell as it can act as HEAT and also overpressure about the same as the HE (38mm vs 37mm). The only disadvantage compared to HE are the bad ricochet angles.
I guess. You could even add that the T-64B has better optics than the regular one too.
I think the KPZ-70 should still move up to 9.7, albeit I still believe the 9.7-12.0 area is still too compressed to really give them their proper BRs.
The optics aren’t that bad but having no LRF is a big disadvantage.
Same BR as the MBT-70 makes no sense. 7,5s vs 6,0s reload should be enough to uptier it to 9.7 but 0.7BR difference between the XM-803 and KPZ-70 feels weird too. It only gains a 20mm, a bit more mobility and a shorter reload.
T-10M (8.3) / Object-279 (9.0)
Tiger 1E (6.0) / Tiger 2H (6.7)
IS-6 (7.7) / IS-7 (8.3)
Centurion Mk1 (6.0) / Centurion Mk2 (6.7)
The tanks that can be compared to each other also only have a 0.7 difference. They should be at least 1.0 apart but they aren’t.
There are also some 0.3 gaps that have a bigger performance difference than the XM-803 and KPZ-70.
KV-1 Zis5 (4.7) / KV-1C (5.0)
IS-1 (5.7) / KV-220 (6.0)
M4A3E2 (6.3) / T26E5 (6.7)
Churchill Mk1 (3.3) / Sherman 3/4 (3.7)
1 Like
I guess so.
I agree with most things you say here.
However, some of them, like the M4A3E2 (76W) and T26E5, have different playstyles that make them reasonablely good at their own BR.
I don’t think the IS-7 is particularly OP. It’s definitely better than the IS-6, but at 8.3, it faces a lot of HEATFS / APDS that makes the armour somewhat unreliable. On the other hand, it gets a 10.0s reload,(which is very good for the round it shoots), and a much better round.
True but that doesn’t mean should be that close in BR.
I’m not saying it’s op but compared to the IS-6 it’s better at everything so these shouldn’t be separated by only 0.7 when the KPZ-70 is also 0.7 higher than the XM-803.
1 Like
In some instances, I’d take the Jumbo 76, in others, I’d take the Jumbo Pershing. With that being said, the Jumbo is still a lower BR - albiet maybe not as far apart as they should. Jumbo 76 is not inferior to the Jumbo Pershing in every way, just a decent number, unlike the Cent Mk.1 vs Cent Mk.2.
MBT-70 is 0.3 higher than XM-803?
Admittedly these 2 might not have been the best examples.
They would be 0.7 apart if the KPZ-70 moves to 9.7.
Yes, but you stated that the MBT-70 would, not the KPZ-70.
I meant the KPZ-70. Corrected the spelling error.
That’s fine
Do not quote “bad spalling” at the tanks which have the worst spalling non mini-caliber dart in the game.
I have yet to encounter a round in game which spalls as little as the XM578E1, the 3BM22 and 3BM42 are so incredibly better spall wise its not even a contest.
4.3kg of HE vs 3.73kg and the HEAT for the longest time lacked overpressure, same with the MGM-51.
Said HE is vastly more reliable at over pressuring targets after my time using both.
The Kpz-70 is completely fine, and one of the best 9.3s. MBT-70 is not different enough to warrant a different BR.
Hehe funny swedish sherman go brrr
That thing is honestly just hilarious, since it gets brought up in discussions about both medium and heavy tanks. Hell, with the engine upgrade + vertical stabiliser it has I wouldnt be suprised if it worked as a decent light tank too!
76mm APFSDS is much much worse than XM758.
The T-64 doesn’t fire XM578. This was about T-64 vs MBT-70 not MBT-70 vs MBT-70.
Doesn’t make a big difference.
OF-471 with 3,6kg TNT has 37mm of pen
M657A2 with 4,3kg TNT has 38mm of pen
Difference is negligible and if overpressure fails you still get the HEAT post pen to do damage. When M657A2 fails your round does 0 damage.
Yes, mini-caliber darts have worse spall than XM578E1 I flat out said that in the start of the post my guy.
At what point was I comparing any of the MBT-70 derivatives? No, I compared the T-64 series rounds to the rounds that the MBT-70 uses, the XM578E1. At no point does the XM578E1 have even remotely the same amount of spall as the 3BM22 or 3BM42.
Spoken like someone who has not used either round. Reminder that the MGM-51 has superior filler and penetration compared to both but still has terrible overpressure effects, or even, until recently, no overpressure effects at all as gaijin broke it’s code. I have seldom successfully overpressured anything with M409A1, meanwhile I’ve nuked more vehicles with M657A2 compared to any other non 155mm artillery HE round.
Ditto.
That and even if you consider it inferior, why would you not add it as an option to begin with. US 37mm guns have HE rounds, they fail to kill almost everything, yet they are still there as an option, why not here too.
1 Like