Because they either also have insane armor (2A7/122B+), insane fire rate (Type 10/TKX), or have a slightly above average reload and ok mobility without being made of (wet) paper (Abrams, Leclerc)
Wasn’t even including the 122s and 2A7s, only 2A5/2A6, should have clarified that.
Regardless my point is still proven. The T-90M is mid at best and easy to fight. Now tou can focus on understanding your own BRs again.
2 Likes
Huh? let’s give abrams a -3kph reverse speed, and tell me if it make the tank slightly worse or a lot worse lol
2 Likes
It really depends very heavily on the playstyle, if we’re being objective.
As the specific engagement scenario matters a lot and as such without specific examples it’s hard to determine.
I could run the numbers, but I doubt that it would sway many people, and would need a significant quantity of data, further a heatmap on a per map basis would be nice to have to allow for strict metrics to be produced on a per map basis as to workable positions and their map coverage and their potential impact on a given round.
Since as with the survivability onion if you aren’t identified, while holding an angle or don’t try and counter-peak someone looking at you there is no reason to need to return to cover. At least in a 1 on 1 engagement. Since, a pre-ranged first shot should be expected for a good position;
As to what you should expect from a 1 vs many encounter, do you really believe that it is fair to expect to be winning those without a misplay by the opponent? And as such be the metric to judge the impact of reverse speed.
If you do, you expose yourself for a short period time, which is dependent on the Hide’s gradient (-5 means locations with a grade of less than ~8.75% are suitable (8.75 meters in altitude per 100 meters of travel) for the tank in question, -10 is ~17.5%) , the tank’s speed, acceleration, gear ratio’s and “height over bore” to effectively return to cover, crew’s driver’s skill all make the difference.
4km/h is ~1.1m/s and Height over bore is about ~3 gun diameters so ~0.4m (125mm * 3) of vertical distance needs to be covered thus ~4.6 meters of incline does as a rough approximation it would take T-Series a an approximate minimum (assumes instantaneous velocity change occurs, ignoring acceleration) of just over 4 seconds (in 5 seconds, the T-series covers ~5.5 meters, so Grade limit is ~7% for a covered reload) , though a lot of positions don’t allow for maximum performance, which narrows viable options, It’s still less than a reload for the majority of tanks that will be faced with any regularity.
Note that the above calculation presumes that you only need to reverse, numbers may be fairly different if peaking or otherwise outside a vacuum, Also this assumes well aimed shots and so precludes accuracy and post penetration damage assumptions as this will change from player to player, but not where the breakpoint falls is as to which is better off for any specific individual encounter.
Further if you really wanted you could rev the engine and subsequently manually shift out of neutral to get best performance, but that’s a lot of work for very little actually improvement.
And is it anything is it not on the player to know and work around the limitations of their lineup? Outside the obvious “erroneous” modeling of their vehicles.
3 Likes
I don’t get people who say that the Russian tanks are good. The only good thing they have is armor. In any other aspects they are bad. Mobility? Mediocre. Reverse? Awful. Reload speed? Not the best. Gun depression? It can be enough. Survivability when hit? Nonexistent.
3 Likes
And the ammo selection that they have access to tends to be more than serviceable for expected threats even in an up-tier, at least from a US perspective.
Take the T-80B with 3BM-42 for example and compare it to it’s Abram’s counterpart, the M1 “basic”, with M774 (which of course could receive M833 or even M900A1, should a fairer fight be needed). or otherwise Pyrophoric properties of DU alloys be modeled. and 3BM-60 still compares favorably to M900 let alone M829 basic, M829A1 only edges it out by less than ~40mm at 2km, and 10mm at point blank and as such is not materially different outside of specific edge cases.
It should be self evident that until M829A2 is added with the SEP / M1A1HC the T Series has an advantage in both offensive and defensive regards(and that doesn’t even bear comparing 3OF-26 or 9M112 vs M393A2, or 3BK18M vs M456A2). At a similar BR up to 12.0 where things invert due to the introduction of M829A2, which even then is reduced from what it should be due to ERA not being fully modeled, and a lack of M829A3 or -A4, M1147 or XM943.
And with Gaijin’s unwillingness to actually implement fixes, and the recent changes to the Turret basket (and simultaneously not adding the Autoloader to the Vertical drive like it should)
Evidence of said claim, that the Autoloader, or at least it's armored shell is attached to the turret, thus should be similarly modeled to the turret basket on the M1 / Leopard, and others
changes could be made to the M1’s NERA array;
Relevant Technical Reports that support the Plastic layers within the NERA matrix having an impact on the level of spalling observed
“The early ballistic tests performed bv FMC demonstrated that about 1/2 inch thickness of the Kevlar material placed behind the APC aluminum armor captured more than 90% of the spall fragment spray produced by a statically detonated shaped charge”
And further none of the following reports were actioned with the recent changes to the model either.
And as such there are a number of outstanding issues with the protection conferred by the M1’s amour and the placement of internal modules that negatively impact performance significantly.
1 Like
One problem
Submitted as a suggestion = Never implemented
Everytime i saw submitted as a suggestion I know that it would never be implemented because
BRM: Hey i submitted a new bug report to fix ABCDE model
Gaijin: Thanks, for the suggestion
BRM: Suggestion?
Gaijin: Oh да so that we can reject the bug report because its a suggestion! We dont have to follow suggestion
It does happen it’s just infrequent, due to the fact that anything that uses a historical record is submitted as a suggestion, not forwarded as a bug report. Even if it is actually erroneous and has a detrimental impact. and as such enters a separate queue that is worked on by a separate team.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BBkIfOuBKyLD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eiJ7Wg5ff5uq
1 Like
It depends on which vehicles people are talking about. The BVM and 80U are both solid A tier vehicles at their BRs respectively.
Yeah, more armor and more pen. But the T80B still loses to Abrams due to reverse speed and I also forgot to mention the fire control systems that these get from 9.3 to 11.7. ok horizontal traverse, but the vertical is horrible, it’s only 4°/s if I remember correctly.
1 Like
The horizontal traverse is ass compared to other nations, 20 degrees a second unless you ace crew for like 800k SL
2 Likes
They have one good thing - they look awesome.
2 Likes
why would American tanks need more advanced ammunition when they already have a good dart?
2 Likes
I’d very much trade, the reverse speed for being almost entirely able to ignore the opponent’s armor scheme (literally just don’t hit the UFP, 3BM-42 easily goes though the basic M1 otherwise) out to just over 2km, seems like it’s more useful in most envisaged scenarios where the opponent sees you, or you somehow don’t get achieve a mission kill on the first shot.
Also the real improvement isn’t that significant over short distances, due to acceleration. Though the Gun depression magnifies the advantage the M1 has. But is after all the impact of design elements that were deliberately made tradeoffs of the T series’ underlying design since it’s a smaller target, and has better armor at a much reduced weight.
So it has a marginal disadvantage at closer ranges, this can be worked around / mitigated with sufficient map knowledge and careful pathing.
To account for the fact that they don’t use the 120mm L/55 caliber guns outside a small number of prototypes, unlike the later leopards, and that without ERA bypass mechanics being implemented there is no other way to improve performance, to account for no improvement to it’s own armor in order to keep pace with the T series.
1 Like
Good points to be honest. But let’s talk about survivability when penned; fuel tanks may act like spall liners but they also have a chance to explode and in a t-80 that no spall effect does not matter that much thanks to the vertically placed charges. Also having no commander override makes this tank less survivable, since you’ll be disabled for at least 8 seconds (?)
It’s not just reverse speed you’d trade, it’s also stuff like reload and gun handling.
The T-80B is ridiculously easy to fight in an Abrams, hell the 80B is kind of sad for it’s BR.
3 Likes
No, it’s enough for the br. Even if it loses the agava-1 thermal, it’s still going to perform decently at 10.7
With the changes to the turret bustle and the fact that the Hydraulic reservoir is erroneously included in all M1’s as part of the traverse mechanism it’s near impossible to, not disable the gun with a penetrating hit that enters the fighting compartment, regardless of where the penetration occurs.
At least with the T series if there is a shot loaded you have much improved chance of being able to return fire, since unlike the turret basket damage to the autoloader doesn’t effect turret traverse at all for some reason, even though it has similar protective internal paneling attached to the turret as shown above, and that the loading arm is attached to the turret and if it was to jam, the carrousel would not be able to rotate out of alignment with the turret, jamming the system and preventing it from loading the next round.
1 Like
It’s sad in the sence that it has to share it’s BR with the Object 292, T-72M2 and 80UD/DU1 which specialize more into certain aspects, meaning they are imo more fun to play.
The T-80B is just okay at best at everything, which can make it pretty mid at times.
1 Like
They won’t do anything about this, unfortunately, as they’ll likely just say its fake like the Abrams’ integrated spall liner. It’s based on the same concept and I’ve already submitted two bug reports about it and both were shot down.
1 Like