Not quite true.
DM53 from L/55 cannon can penetrate UFPs of K5 tanks, meanwhile those you mentioned can’t.
Also, more penetration means better spall so it’s always better to have more.
1 Like
Simply not true, reverse speed helps greatly when you expose yourself to fire and want to get back behind cover immediately. It also helps when you need to escape certain situations.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how that goes against what I said.
In a realistic scenario regarding peaking, I doubt any tank will be able to hit the brakes/reverse fast enough for them to accelerate out of an enemy’s sight before they’re shot. When talking about full-on having to reverse into an alley or something, I have even more doubt that any tank can reverse a whole tank-length or more quick enough.
It helps greatly in the small number of scenarios where it would matter, but again a tank being able to reverse a tank length or more just isn’t happening with any in-game reverse gear.
You are making the massive assumption that reverse speed is only useful in urban combat. The assumption itself doesn’t suprise me seeing as you really don’t have much of an understanding of top tier.
The lack of reverse speed makes it so that the T-90M also can’t really play hull down at all, because if it messes up even a little it will just get killed for it.
The reverse speed is more helpful than the T-90M armor and survivability though. I’m pretty curious which content creator has convinced you that this isn’t true.
I don’t mean just urban combat, I mean any combat where you use cover.
Depending on how far away cover is from the hull-down position, maybe, but the T-90M is the second-most suited tank for dealing with that downside.
Just math, because reverse speed straight up can’t get you out of the majority of scenarios like armor can.
Yet 80-90% of the good players would still rather be in an Abrams/Leo 2/Leclerc/Type 10 over a T-90M any day of the week.
Most of the good players here wouldn’t even have to think about that choice afaik.
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
1 Like
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.
2 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.
2 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.
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
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
1 Like
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?
1 Like
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.