Modern tanks on WW2 BR

Well i got to 6.3 quite recently on US and German tech tree and i was surprised with m109’s on the same br as ww2 vehicles , like they have enough firepower to takedown modern mbts i supose so why the heck these weird tanks are on ww2 br with the 155 mm guns , they were created 15 years after the war and it feels so dumb to play against tanks and makes the game realism (if there is still some) just dissapear, im not complaining about only the m109s but most of these modern vehicles that are on low br can still take care modern tanks with some exceptions

2 Likes

Have you ever realized that vehicles in WT are not placed by time?
Or you are ready to fight against T-64B(1966) and even T-80U(1976) with basic M-60(1959, M-60A1 in 1973) and Leopard1(1965, L1A5 in 1982)?

1 Like

I’d like to know what qualifies the M109s, 60’s and 70’s vehicles, as modern.

2023 is further away from the 60s than the 30s are to the 60s…

2 Likes

Yeah it all unravels at around 6BR .Some people try to defend it but its crap and most of those who want even just a touch of realism just stay below 6BR

yea but i think at least in some cases these tanks were in service at the same time but an tiger2 wasn’t in service on the 60’s from what i know

m109s are being used till these days, even tho are some other more modern versions of it , it was made when mbts were already a thing and i just think an m26 or an tiger 2 arent any type of mbt’s, yea its quite old still but the tank shouldn’t be on 6.0 going against ww2 without an full uptier at least

T-55s are also being used to this day. So what?
These vehicles are largely upgraded from what they used to be and the same can be said for the M109s. The M109A7 is hardly comparable to the original product.

Additionally, War Thunder’s balance isn’t centred around historical matchups, it’s centred around a BR system. Admittedly, these vehicles could see a slight increase by 0.3, but there is no reason as to why they shouldn’t be facing WW2 vehicles with this system in mind.
They are slow vehicles with no armour, poor turret handling, poor suspension and a (relatively) poor reload. All they have going for them is a meme shell that doesn’t even work like traditional AP shells do.
The disparity between vehicles from early WW2 and late WW2 is much greater than that of late WW2 and the 60s. This is reflected in all ways in the BR system.

Realistically speaking there are very few reasons why someone would want to even pick an M109 over a Pershing or Tiger II despite the latter being older tanks: they function better in game than the gimmicky artillery vehicles.

1 Like

no way. late ww2 doenst have heatfs, laser rangefinder and etc etc etc that these fucking tanks have, i used the m109s as an example but you have type 99 with the 7.5 secs reload with 15kg of explosive, bkan with 3.2 secs with both of them having a decent mobility and very good velocity for how bit it gun is, and t55s got way more modernized then m109s and at least they fit on the game since they are a tank and tehy aren’t on ww2 br too, these if you wont consider them modern but they are, they came when mbts were a thing , so they are able to take on mbts, if they want to add these retarded vehicles they should at least put them on a br that makes sense to have them, and in cases such that the vehicle doesn’t have the firepower to take vehicles from the same era is simple, dont add them . having to fight type 99s on a tiger 2 or an pershing is just too much, not even saying about when you get full uptiers and your fighting heatfs laser rangefinder vehicles and atgms.

Loving the use of etc etc when something other than these features can’t be come up with.
It’s funny, neither the M109A1 nor Type 99 nor Bkan 1C have any of those things you just mentioned, they’re literally just big gun carriages. How can you complain about these artillery vehicles when they don’t even have any (game functional) features that make them so much more advanced in game?
One thing I’ll give you for the Bkan and Type 99 is their reloads, but that and their strong HE are about their only advantages. Their mobility isn’t something to write home about and all of these HE slingers have major downsides.
Admittedly the Type 99 could use a BR raise, but there’s nothing here that we haven’t seen already.

And to say that T-55s were modernized to a greater extent than the M109 family is just hilarious. I guess we’re going to ignore all the digitalisation and computerisation of these artillery pieces because they aren’t so immediately obvious on the outside…

You also say that certain things are modern because “they were made when MBTs were a thing”, but we literally don’t even have a set vehicle that is considered the first MBT, it is still a big point of discussion. Some say it’s the Panther, others say it’s the Centurion, still others would say it’s way later in the T-64.
In the end such naming conventions are meaningless in this conversation though, so I have no clue what you are trying to achieve with them.

Anyhow, just for you I checked how many vehicles exactly have laser rangefinders at 8.0 or lower.
Why this BR? Because I’d say 7.0 is the general end of the WW2 era with only a few exceptions existing such as Maus. Here’s what I found:

Spoiler
  • Wiesel 1A4

  • Marder A1-

  • Marder 1A3

  • ZTS-63

  • ZTZ-59A

  • Type 69

  • M41D

  • OF-40

  • IKV 91

  • Strv 103A

  • Strv 103-0

  • VIDAR

Interesting. You complain about how the artillery vehicles are too strong yet they aren’t among these vehicles with the exception of VIDAR, which you failed to mention.

Oh, and about the point on “it being unrealistic that these vehicles face each other”, here’s a picture from Kosovo in the 90s. American Abrams and Yugoslav M36 that were in service at the same time.
image

I know it’s only tangential to the discussion, but you raise an excellent point re MBT history. I’ve often found the Panther a very weird one to “nominate” as the first MBT, and don’t understand why people do that.

“MBT” is a doctrinal designation. And from a doctrine perspective, the Panther definitely isn’t intended to combine all or most tank roles, and definitely isn’t that versatile either.

If I really had to name a WW2 design with the combination of mobility, protection, and firepower worthy of an MBT role, my honest pick is the T-44-100. Great frontal protection, great mobility, gun comparable to the long 88.

1 Like

The M109 is from the 60’s.

1 Like

1st these tanks have better mobility then even some 7.7 tanks, with m109s having 56kmh stock speed and their acceleration being very decent, with type 99 having 50kmh stock and 30kmh reverse.

Their armor might not be that great but they have so much crew that makes it an very survivable tank, you can pretty much tank a hit and run away since your speed is very good.

2nd the m109s as said before are from the 60s (1963) so it still about 20 years before the war ended, the tank designs from ww2 and post war/ cold war era changed alot, but the designs from these times to today didn’t change much specialy because of the adoption of the mbts.

3rd i dindnt mention the VIDAR for 1 singular reason, its 8.0 not 7.7 anymore, so i haven’t seen much of these in battles so i didn’t even knew that this tank was a thing when i created this post untill i got my first tier 5 tank.

4th The yugoslav army used the m36 for a very long time, but since its introduction on their army the m36 was already obsolete, most of these ww2 era vehicles being used after the war are being used as mobile fire support as an artillery or something like that so just because you saw a photo of these two doesn’t mean much, specialy since their m36 were upgraded with an t55 engine and equiped with an better heat shell the same as their m47s use.

the point i want to bring is that most of these 60s vehicles on ww2 BR could easily sit on higher BR such as 7.0 for the m109s, 7.7 for the type 99, 7.7 for the bkan 1c, just because the bkan has to turn the entire tank to shoot doesn’t justify the fact that its an 3.2 secs reload on a 155mm gun at 6.7 br or the type 99 with 7.5 secs reload and 15kg of explosive at 7.0, from the realism part is just simple, an tiger II wasn’t in service on the 60s , an pershing wasn’t in service on the 60s, and having these vehicles sit on these BR is just because they turn their turret slower then the other tanks, some of them are even faster then most of the medium and heavy tanks only losing for light tanks witch on some cases like the t92 is actualy only 1 km faster then the m109s.

To say they have better mobility than “some 7.7 tanks” us no hard feat when some of the most heavily non-composite armored tanks are around that BR lol

That’s just funny considering how their armour is still enough to proxy APHE and/or the ammo is placed densely and vulnerably enough to be some of the most easily targeted of any tanks around….

I’m sorry but that’s just a plain stupid and ignorant claim.
It’s like saying there’s little difference between Leopard 1 and 2 because they’re both MBTs, it’s too generalized and ignores the nuance in what these vehicles imply.
As @AurenKarach stated, it is more a doctrinal naming convention than it is something truly statistical and thus means very little. T-64 and Type 74 are MBT yet differ vastly in purpose and functionality.

To say “modern” SPH’s are too “modern” for WW2 vehicles to face is again ridiculous.
Let’s just conveniently forget all the disadvantages that such vehicles bring with them for the sake of a years long debunked “argument” about “historical balance”.

And sure, warfare changed quite a lot between the 40s and 60s…. So did warfare from the 30s to the 40s in arguably more radical ways during a shorter timeframe.
No true point is being made here and no agenda is being achieved. The copium is at it’s most obvious it’s ever been.

So what you’re saying is that you didn’t mention the VIDAR because it didn’t bother you… AKA you didn’t face it and thus don’t get bothered by it AKA you only complain about “modern vehicles” when they face you and you notice they don’t exactly fit in the timeframe of the vehicles you’re playing. TL;DR; you’re just playing 6.7 Germany and don’t like getting bonked by allied vehicles that just so happened to shot you and got produced later while ignoring the fact that these vehicles still are far from OP or meta, just choosing to complain about them for some nonexistent “balancing issue” because easy mode isn’t enabled when playing Germany.
Funny how you ignore the fact that Germany is also one of the foremost laser-rangefinder using tanks in the sub-8.0 range too yet you complain about vehicles that don’t even get such advantages to begin with… ridiculous…

These vehicles were in reserves before the war started and got pulled into service when the Yugoslav wars broke out.
These vehicles were in active service when the war broke out.
What’s funny is that you confirm my statement of historical balance being a joke to be true by calling these vehicle obsolete for the time: INDEED, they were, yet they were still in service at the same time Abrams was. This is a much greater “time discrepancy” than the Tiger II fighting the M109 is, so thank you for confirming my point on historical balance being worse than the BR system is for the game :’).

And regardless of what upgrades these vehicle had, they were still very disadvantaged when compared to contemporary vehicles, so there’s another point in my favor. I love how the copium is backfiring, let’s not forget that T-34-85s are also still in use today, as are things such as M8 Greyhound!

I’m afraid it does, because all of the mentioned tanks are clunky to fire, have VERY exposed ammo, their mobility really isn’t as great as you make it out to be, their armour is enough to fuse APHE and thus makes them vulnerable to said shell, they don’t have advantages like HEATFS or laser rangefinders that you complained about earlier and they are utterly massive and inflexible units.
All you seem to see is “big shell OP” and thus complain about it.

Yeah that’s funny, because while Tiger II was phased out after the war the T26 wasn’t. It’s funny, even some 3.7 tanks got used for longer than Tiher II did but somehow you forget to mention that (Pz.IV series and StuG III series for example, and that’s ignoring the Sherman and T-34 variants!).
It’s also funny how you look at the statistic top speed of these vehicles and compare them to light tanks but ignore things such as agility and acceleration.
How to tell me you haven’t experienced these vehicles without telling me it directly….

No matter how you look at it, you are outclassed in this debate.
I recommend simply learning to work around these vehicles like any other person would instead of complaining about nonexistent issues, you won’t win this argument anyways.

1 Like

Prefacing that I think the M109s are balanced where they are, my one complaint is that the damage model is a bit wonky.

To stay with the perspective of German 6.7, they don’t really fuze APHE in my experience. And irrespective of the fuze not going off, the crew sometimes survives even the unfuzed shell passing through them.

Because of the good reverse mobility, disabling the breech is usually not really an option. So I always go for the ammo propellant charge in the lower hull if possible, but of course you have the usual RNG issue of the ammo turning yellow and stuff like that.

It should be 100% understood that the M109s are hardly unique in this regard. It’s a widespread problem in WT that affects vehicles from all trees, and is no justification enough to send a vehicle up. Especially one that dies to .50s.

As a fellow Italian player said in a Facebook group, if you truly think M109s are game breaking, “the only thing I can recommend is for you to plug in and install your hands.”

Still one of the greatest comments of all time.

1 Like

If you look at them from the perspective of the performance triangle, they do two things very well: good mobility and good firepower.

Sometimes you encounter vehicles that only do one thing well. For a Churchill, it’s armour. For a Dicker Max, it’s firepower.

However, vehicles that do well in two out of three are hardly unique. The Jagdtiger has good armour and good firepower. The Leopard 1 has good mobility and good firepower.

Then you even have vehicles which do well in all three, like the aforementioned T-44-100. Even the Tiger II arguably falls in this category, especially the Sla, because the mobility isn’t bad for the standards of a WW2 heavy, and it has some “medium-like” traits like the fantastic reload and gun handling.

So the M109s are, again, hardly unique in their performance aspect.

I’ve already talked about survivability. Yes, they are surprisingly survivable sometimes, but the key is sometimes. You can die to very silly things, meaning that you can’t play as if your survivability is actually a reliable factor.

Tank design has changed massively. But the Paladin is not a tank, so let’s ignore that for a second.

I’d like you to consider something you may have overlooked. Armoured vehicles in real life have to carry out many jobs, and worry about many threats, that don’t exist in this game.

Ferry troops. Provide fire support, sometimes even indirect. Watch out for artillery at the tactical and operational level. Anti-tank infantry. Logistics and repair.

Being a videogame, War Thunder has a much narrower focus, so a lot of AFVs will never function like they were supposed to in real life. You will never have to carry infantry while fording a river in the PT-76. Instead, you’ll have to fight tanks, something which the PT is very bad at, because it’s not its job. And the only way to make that competitive, is to make the PT fight against tanks that are worse than its contemporaries.

The M109 will never be able to fulfill its primary doctrinal function in War Thunder. Yes, the M109 is a “modern” artillery platform, but it’s not a modern tank destroyer, which is why it sits at 6.0!

The moment the M109 encounters composite armour in War Thunder, it’s dead. And you want it to fight T-72s?

If you think that’s balanced, take the German M109 into a high tier battle and show us. Do it yourself.

I know you probably don’t see the irony in this, it’s fine, I once didn’t see it either.

We have this chronic problem in WT where a lot of people only play against something a handful of times, and then draw partial conclusions. And then request changes without even stopping for a second to think about how this affects the rest of the game.

Or, in other words,

You can do better than that.

Because the factories were physically erased off the face of the earth, and by the time Germany needed AFVs, it was easier to start from scratch. Otherwise, it could have been.

The real world Tiger II was marred by a host of crippling issues, but what one should never forget is that it got insufficient R&D from a nation whose technological base was constantly shrinking at the strategic level, and always operated in conditions of inadequate transport, logistics, and supporting combined arms.

If you waved a magic wand and give the Tiger II to the Americans and the Pershing to the Germans, within six months the Pershing will be fuel starved and upgunned into near-immobility and the Tiger II willl have its kinks ironed out.

The Tiger II we have in game is not constrained by that apocalyptic environment. It’s the “ideal” Tiger II, the Tiger II “as it should have been”, and can absolutely go toe to toe with many cold war tanks.

1 Like