The CR2s are good at 11.7… they don’t need to be lowered to 11.3.
Good firepower, reload, thermals, gun depression, reverse speed, armour… just crappy acceleration and survivability (when not hull-down).
I agree that the T-80UD was somewhat of a 10.7 vehicle when it was 10.3 before the reload buffs, but even with the reload buff, it’s not really 11.0 worthy.
Currently a good 10.7 but definitely not the best. It would be a subpar 11.0 MBT.
Did I say they needed to be lowered?
Also no their firepower is terrible dude, they get 4 reloads fast then it’s off to over 7 seconds if they do not have an expert level 100 odds crew.
Which is made irrelevant due to even 10.3 tanks being able to shoot clean through the top of the turret because after the remodel they broke more than they fixed.
I love the CR2s IRL and in game they are pathetic to what they should be.
even when hull down, Leopards, abrams and such will still outperform you overall due to the massive void they put in the front of the turret.
@Morvran has a big ol list of stuff borked on CR2, the BN and 2E aren’t as bad to use as they have their gimmicks
Considering we’ve got the likes of the ZTZ 99 II and III at 11.0 that’s ofc going to be the case, however these should by all means move to 11.3, the T90A I don’t really like but it’s not a great tank due to the restrictions in it’s mobility.
The T80UD I don’t think should be 11.0, as the objectively better T80UD / BE or whatever it is in china is 11.0 Which BTW it has thermals, that’s it, and is a fine 11.0 good backup.
No, but it is implied when you said the CR1s are good tanks… unlike the CR2s.
Should bad tanks be at their current BR? Probably not…
But even if you don’t mean that they should be lowered, any buffs for the 11.7 CR2s is definitely unnecessary for it to become balanced since they’re already good.
Better UFP, for example 560mm instead of 520mm, may mean it should be 12.0.
5s reload is pretty good initially, but I understand that it’s pretty subpar after the 4 rounds. If it had a larger first stage or quicker replenishment then that would be great.
Ace crew it’s around 6.5s without first stage, which isn’t great but it isn’t completely unusable to be fair.
Expert crew would probably be around 7s.
It really depends on the situation whether I’d rather have 6s consistently or 5s for 4 rounds and then 6.5s afterwards.
Where?
At most they’d get some of your warheads and commander.
What void?
No Leopard / Abrams at 11.7 has as good armour as the Challenger 2, so the Challenger 2 reigns supreme in long-range confrontations (which doesn’t really exist on most maps but can come up when given the opportunity) and hull-down CQC.
Sure, but they are a whole 1.0 BR higher than the regular CR2s… and at that point I’d rather use the 12.0 / 12.7 Abrams, TKX / Type 10, Merkava Mk.4M, Strv 122s or Leo 2A7s in most cases.
If only they were 12.3 :/
The ZTZ99 II and III seem good for 11.0 but nothing particularly crazy.
It’s basically a T-72B3 with slightly worse acceleration, worse turret traverse speed, much worse vertical targeting speed, much worse side armour but with slightly higher top speed, slightly better gun depression, slightly better reverse speed, better turret armour, LWS, and access to IRST + HE-VT.
They could possibly be the same BR of 11.3 but I’m not truly convinced.
Ok, we both agree here.
Yeah, I have the T-80UD / BE mostly spaded.
It was pretty decent at 10.7. The thermals definitely helped at long range and to counter ESS, though while the 6s reload and armour is still good enough for 11.0, it’s gun handling and reverse speed really hampers its ability to do well – especially when it starts to face tougher vehicles (like the IPM1) with only 3BM42.
At least the Swedish T-80 U (which also only gets 3BM42 and is all the way up at 11.3) gets good enough mobility to retreat back into cover when necessary.
No where did I imply that they should move down.
I stated that the CR1s are solid tanks at 10.7 unlike the CR2s at top tier.
That doesn’t I believe CR2s should move down, That’s you putting words in my mouth which I never said, nor would want.
Just because something isn’t great / good at it’s BR doesn’t automatically mean move it down.
It just means it isn’t as good as it could be for the BR or compared to it’s peers.
they are not unnecessary at all, they’re not good tanks mate lol, the only MBTs worse than the CR2s are the arietes.
they will never get their correct armours due to the total clod who leaked them.
So it’s a moot point it getting an armour buff.
It’s terrible mate. 6.5 seconds for an ace crew which either takes hundreds if not thousands of games, or paying for it just to have the 3rd slowest reload at 11.7 and up.
only slower reloading tanks are the T72/90 auto loaders and chinese auto loaders.
I’d rather have the realistic ready rack on the tank and not have random shells / racks all over the shop.
ACross the top of the turret is borked mate most times rounds will skid clean through it.
plus let’s not forget the damn breach is a huge hole in the front
at most
Let’s not forget if 3BM42 can go through teh top of the turret, so can the likes of DM63 or any other high penning round. Try it with 3BM46
and it’ll spall into ammo and into the damn breach from shooting the roof at an angle.
Have you ever used them?
No you’ve not lol.
The ZTZ 99 II and III are extremely good, they’re faster overall, marginally slower acceleration but faster in general.
The side armour on a 72B3 is horrendous as well.
Trust me these all add up they’re potent af at 11.0 , they’ve also got a thinner turret not as easy to hit.
You’ve not used either of the tanks, I’d strongly suggest trying both out and seeing what you think, the ZTZ99 II and III are not equals to the T90A
Here’s my stats from the ZTZs and the T90A + T72B3.
They are 11.0 factors hence why.
The lack of thermals is the only reason the standard UD isn’t 11.0.
It’s got the exact same mobility just about as the T90A, about the same armour and gun elevation speeds.
Only difference is the 3BM42.
only ?
3BM42 is an excellent dart and works well on any abrams lol.
The 12.7 CR2s sure, but the 11.7 CR2s aren’t bad at all.
You can work with its armour, round, gun depression, reverse speed, thermals, etc…
The only real problem I have with it is its acceleration and its top speed.
I wouldn’t say it’s the most META MBT at 11.7 (that would probably go to the M1A1 / Type 90), but they’re still very good, and my stats support that idea:
That’s just an example.
They could probably do others things to improve it in some way.
If we ignore the first 4 rounds, sure.
Hey, there’s the other buff they could technically give it.
It’s actually not even that big compared to what you can do to other 11.3 - 11.7 MBTs when they’re hull-down:
And the MBTs that may have similar frontal hull-down protection as the Chally 2 (like the ZTZ99-III and possibly the T-90A) don’t have the -10 degrees of gun depression that allows the Chally 2 to get into quite a few hull-down positions in the first place.
The second and third picture does show that you could get the loader (if you’re lucky and don’t miss / have the shell ricochet) and commander
This also doesn’t reflect how the round would impact the armour when the Chally 2 uses its gun depression, unlike in this example:
Never really disables the breech, mostly either yellows / oranges it if anything.
The spall going into the ammo isn’t really a big deal since it’s only warheads anyways.
Do I need to use it to know what its potential pros and cons are?
Sure, experience helps form a more accurate opinion, but it doesn’t just immediately invalidate others.
Again, they seem good for 11.0.
At long range I’d say it looks to be quite good because of its armour, round, and thermals, but it would suffer in CQC (which is currently what most maps are in all honesty) because I can’t say the reverse speed and reload speed are all that forgiving.
I’d take the IPM1 in pretty much all cases, and Merkava Mk.3 in most cases, though it makes a good contender with the T-72B3.
80mm of RHA side armour, along with RELIKT ERA (200mm KE, 600mm CE).
Ah yes, just as horrendous as the ZTZ99’s 50mm of RHA.
Yeah I see that.
Again, not saying it’s a bad or mediocre. It’s definitely good at 11.0 but I’m not sure if all these pros (when compared to the T-72B3) can outweigh what the T-72B3 has to offer.
I’ve never seen it played in 11.0 Squadron battles, nor in GRB matches so either it’s secretly underrated (which is possible but unlikely) or it’s good but not great.
I’m betting on the latter in all honesty.
The III does (hence why I said they have better turret armour than the B3), but the II is similar to the B3, if not worse:
I would but I currently don’t have China anywhere near that rank.
I’ll probably ask some of my friends to play with it and see how they do.
Well, the problem with all-time stats is that it doesn’t show when you played each of them (so a difference in skill could likely be a reason for such a gap in performance).
That’s true, though it doesn’t negate the fact that reverse speed and mediocre shell combo really hampers its effectiveness.
The turret armour on the T-90A is a bit better, and the hull armour is a lot better:
It doesn’t have the armour gaps at the bottom right and left corners, and no gaps in between the ERA packages. It’s basically an all-round ~600mm UFP, as with the T-72B3’s.
Better UFP armour, LWS, slightly better turret armour, and 3BM60 but the T-80UD / BE gets a 6s reload and slightly better gun elevation speeds.
I mean, the difference in capabilities isn’t that huge, and they perform better in different situations (though the 6s reload and gun elevation speeds work better in CQC). The T-80UD / BE is fine at 11.0, I agree, but it isn’t that great – just like the T-90A.
It’s a good dart but starts to become outdated past 11.0 - 11.3.
It starts to struggle to pen both turret cheeks of the IPM1 (which is just 0.3 higher than you, has better mobility, has a 5s reload, better round, and better gun depression than you):
Meanwhile, 3BM60 / DTC10-125 not only lol-pens it anywhere (other than the UFP), but it also ammo racks it, killing it instantly:
So yes, it only gets 3BM42 (but gets a 6s reload, which is fair enough I guess).
0.3 BRs higher and you could have the exact same thing but better acceleration, top speed, and much more usable reverse speed with the Swedish T-80 U at the cost of worse generation thermals.
They’re good for you sure, but overall the CR2 baseline has a worse KD than the M1A1 clickbait, or the M1A1, it’s also falling behind the likes of the Raam sagol and such at 11.3 KD wise. IPM1 also has about 0.24 more KD than the CR2 yet is 11.3
As well as this the reload is a killer mate.
Overall stats do not, as well as my own experience with them. Though a caveat the CR2 was one of my first top tier MBTs a long time ago and I rarely use them now.
The rank 8 ones I would argue are better due to the gimmicks they get along with them, 2E magnificent optics as well as good speed and okay mobility.
BN has the Laser for shooting down air, has a LWS, great APS as well as the same rounds.
Yeah fix it’s falsified ready racks for the real deal.
it takes about 30 seconds or so to restore the ready rack, so there are very few situations you are in, especially if it’s hull down sniping where you’ll not run out of those four rounds before it actually replenishes.
Thus you’ll end up most games with at the absolute best, 6.5 second reload.
Which is not good for top tier.
What you are showing on the leopard 2A4M is not what it’s like in matches man, I got it the other day and it soaks so much where it shouldn’t.
the M1A1 comparison photo is literally the tanks only draw back, it’s got great mobility, 5 second reload, M829A1 which is 600 pen, has decent survivability as well.
T80 U i believe it is in that photo is not that weak on the tank, what rounds are you using for it to be that green. Same for the M1A1 TBH unless you’re using DM53
Type 90 as well will soak most rounds at 11.7 quite readily bar of course the highest penning stuff like DM53 and M829A2 which will go through it easily.
I’ve got every tank you’re talking about and have thousands of games across them, I know what they can and cannot do quite well.
by the way the leopard 2A4M is 12.0
Only if they give it thermals.
note most shots have made the breach red.
because there are very few positions where you’re going to be able to utilise -10 degrees, they will literally just shoot your gun or breach out lol.
then the turret roof if they don’t want to push.
Good for you, the fact is I roll around in 10.7 leopard 2s which have a pretty mediocre round and do it to em, never mind using stuff like L26 or god forbid DM33on the ariete.
Yes because using a vehicle gives you far more experience with how it works in game, compared to saying X is bad therefore it’s bad.
There’s quite a few people who agree with me when it comes to the ZTZ 99 II and III , mostly folks who know how much they stomp especially in a downtier.
When you completely ignore how the tank functions in an actual match compared to on a statcard which doesn’t do them justice most the time.
The ZTZs are a menace for tanks at their own BRs.
The T72B3 sucks TBH mate, worse mobility, sure better turret and gun traverse, same thermals, roughly comparable optics, no Proxy rounds as well as worse turret layout, can just plink it’s roof to take out the FCS, breach and ofc the crew.
It’s secretly underrated mate, most folks tend to play the MBT2000 or the AL-khalid rather than use them at all.
the 2 has a narrower turret desing than the T72B3 as well
Please sir, if you’re going do this, turn off the considering the vertical camera angle…
should always be turned off.
I ground china to top tier before russia, russia was one of the last nations I got to top tier as their MBTs are pretty ass bar the T80s.
the 3BM42 isn’t mediocre where it is TBF
EDIT:
This is the T72B3 turret WITHOUT vertical camera angle turned on mate, the DM13 from a 120MM which is found at 9.3 can nuke half the tank in one shot.
hence my point the ZTZ 99 II and III are about equal to this, rather than the T90A.
Clickbait is better than the CR2 BR-for-BR (which is why it should be 12.3 / maybe 12.7).
I’m not surprised about that.
The CR2 has a better K/D than the M1A1 during March 2026, even the lowest performing one:
Well it gets a better matchmaker (being able to see 10.3s and only 4x 12.3s)…
No wonder it does better.
Ra’am Sagol is also a great 11.3 so I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect it to perform better than, or at least just as good as, the Challengers 2s.
Same thing as the Ra’am Sagol.
If it were 11.7 (with the same matchmaking as the Challenger 2), I’m sure it won’t perform nearly as well.
The Ho-Ri Production has an even better K/D and yet it’s 7.3.
Does it mean it’s better than the IPM1? Of course not.
The IPM1 would just wipe the floor against it, but it just means the Ho-Ri Production is better BR-FOR-BR (along with other factors, like player skill demographic, popularity, the relative inexperience of players in lower BR matches, etc.) than the IPM1.
Far less than the constant 7s reload of things like the ZTZ99s, T-72B3s, and T-90As.
Well there’s your problem.
But at 12.7, the Chally 2E’s armour is inferior to MBTs of the same BR (like the 2A7 / 122s), the round is no longer above average, but rather below average (600mm+ rounds are much more common at 12.7).
Pretty much everything that made the Challenger 2 unique (a well-armoured NATO MBT) has now been stripped to make it a mediocre MBT that is objectively inferior to the M1A2 SEP V1, Leopard 2A7s, and 122s.
A whole 1.0 BR higher for 4 charges of great APS, Track IRST, and LWS is not a great trade-off in my opinion.
Maybe if it was 12.0 / 12.3.
Except it isn’t really top top tier. It’s 11.7.
You are still facing a bunch of T-72s, T-90s, and ZTZs that often have a crappy reload and no way to reverse back into cover, and NATO MBTs with no armour nor survivability.
And yes, 24s (with ACE crew) to replenish the first round into the first stage is quite long, don’t get me wrong. If there was something that they could buff for the Challenger 2 without making it a lot better, reducing it to ~15s or so would be great.
At long range you can definitely notice running out of first stage quick, though in CQC you can often kill a few and then nothing else happens. That grace period of travelling or retreating is usually the time when my first stage gets replenished (slowly but surely).
Well, I think I missed part of the wedge on the left cheek (I will show you what I mean) but I’m showing you how it is:
Maybe the enemies just suck.
Well, I did say it was one of the most META vehicles for 11.7.
Survivability is really dependent on the enemy since you can just lol-pen its turret cheeks and ammo rack it with most rounds at ~11.3+:
Good survivability if the enemy shoots rounds with less than ~500mm of pen (like 3BM42) to be fair.
Simple, L27A1.
Even 3BM46 (which is on the lower end of ~11.3 - 12.0 shells) can lol-pen it, often ammo-racking it through the blowout panels:
And again, 3BM42 would’ve struggled a lot more, but even 3BM42 can shoot the turret ring / breech and get a one-shot kill either through crew wipeout or ammo-racking it.
Apparently not?
Yeah, I know.
Where?
Do you need to be a woman to have an opinion on abortion?
Do you need to have played the BI to know that it’s OP?
You can play against it, you can see people play it, you can learn what it has that other vehicles don’t have… etc.
First-hand experience with a vehicle is quite useful but it isn’t the only way to form a solid opinion.
Instead, it supplements what theory and observations you have already made.
Well, I’m telling you how these long reload, poor reverse speed MBTs play out in an actual match (from my experience using such vehicles and fighting against them, as well as from seeing others play them).
Nothing about the ZTZ99-III changes the fact that you can’t retreat after pushing a corner and killing an enemy before another one comes around.
It will behave exactly the same as the T-72B3 in that situation, and it’s quite a common situation too.
NATO MBTs with good reverse speeds almost always can get back into cover before a second tank can catch them while on reload (and even then, they have 5s, 6s , 6.5s reloads), but you don’t even need it to be that much better. -11km/h (for me at least) is usually enough to retreat back to a corner too.
The ZTZ99-IIIs and T-72B3s can be good in a lot of situations (especially considering they both have relatively good armour (ZTZ99-III’s turret armour being frontally better to be fair), great rounds, good acceleration, and good gun handling) but I’d rather stick with the MSC, Vickers Mk.7, Abrams, or 2A4 to be honest with you… and it seems like top squadrons either completely overlooked it (which again, I think it’s possible but improbable) or that it’s good but nothing special.
It probably does well in GRB but will suffer against a competent player in a NATO MBT in most CQC situations.
I’m not the best at 1v1s but if you want, I’ll choose a 10.7 NATO MBT and you can duel me with the ZTZ-99-III. 😅
Well, the extra hull side armour of the T-72B3 definitely helps against IFVs and the BMPT.
The top speed of the ZTZ99s are better but the acceleration is slightly worse from what I’m seeing.
The optics is actually worse with the ZTZ99 since it has only a 6x min zoom (not really good for CQC, unlike 4x).
There are definitely some pros with the ZTZ99-III (especially the better turret armour).
Maybe the II should stay at 11.0 and the III should go to 11.3, though that may be a bit of a stretch.
There’s a bunch of secretly underrated vehicles that are played in squadron battles.
I’ve barely seen anyone play the TU-2S in GRB (more often just Yak-9s) but it’s extremely prevalent in Squadron Battles.
The Vickers Mk.7 is barely played in GRB (especially because it’s British) but it’s quite common amongst Top Squadrons.
I’d be surprised if they haven’t catched on that the ZTZ-99-III is supposedly one of the best 11.0s out there (especially considering there isn’t any game mechanics to learn about, unlike with Laser + IOG Helicopters).
I mean that can definitely help, but the area for which an enemy can shoot and penetrate is pretty much the same.
Dude, ‘consider camera vertical angle’ only affects where the green paint is plastered over the tank.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/xv15v4/what_does_this_even_do_ive_played_for_a_while_and/
It doesn’t change anything about how your (or rather my) shell is simulated.
Your camera’s vertical angle for your shot’s simulation is still taken into account regardless of whether or not you have that checkmarked or not.
Well maybe in a full downtier it isn’t. But as soon as you start facing 11.3+ MBTs (like the IPM1 and Type 90 I mentioned earlier), you can immediately tell the difference between it and rounds like 3BM46 and 3BM60.
While this may be true overall, you have played the ZTZ99s after you had originally played the T-90A / T-72B3:
So your overall stats for your T-90A and T-72B3 includes past skill issues before Nov 9, 2024, which isn’t taken into account with your ZTZ99s.
All your T-72B3 stats were also when it was 11.7 in ~2024 / ~2025 (and only recently moved back down to 11.3), so no wonder you weren’t doing great.
Its also used by massively worse players than fhe CR2
Though you and I are in agreement the M1a1 /A2s with access to the m829A2 round should at mininum be 12.3.
Leopard 2a5 and PL are so why them not.
I may have mixed the A1 with the HC when looking over it mate I wrote my responses rather quickly.
Fair enough though.
Raam saagol and the merkaca mk3s could and probably should be 11.7, however its becuase were running out of 11.7s to compare with the CR2.
I uptier mine to 11.7 and 12.7 and its fine tbh.
No ones saying that ans this comparison is just obtuse.
The IPM1 is 11.3 and the CR2 11.7. It arguably can do better at 11.7 than CR2 can based of its capabilities.
You should compare the Ho ri to the likes of the 7.7
The thing with the constant reload is it’s consistent. You dont go from 5 seconds to 7 its 7 constantly.
Eh even when i go back to the 11.7 ones i don’t do well, the 12.7s I do far better as my stats show.
All mbts armour is inferior to those two tbh.
Pff 2nd worse round at 12.3/12.7 only oplot has worse byt at 12.7 its the worst.
Believe me I know man, it’s why i dont use them, even the likes of the 2A5 out do them in general.
They suit verh specific players and playstyles at those BRs.
Yup agreed but here we are I’ve no idea how they can say a 2E is the same as a 2A6, m1A2 never mind the 2A7 etc.
People using tanks poorly doesnt make others great, ztz firing a better round, T90A firing better rounds, comparable nato MBTs have decent or better rounds like the M1A1.
It was a nerf back in the day when CR2 had the only 5 second reload, now everyone gets em which is stupid af.
Often if im in Cqc ill get into a cap zone to reload faster .
Long range it is what it is.
The optics soaks more than it should, the cheeks bounce actually more than they should considering its missing composites.
I think it was 2 T80 U shooting 3bm46 i was taking in it.
Probs just 🍝 coding though.
Eh folks need ti learn the turret wiggle with it, it saves it a lot.
Doesn’t happen in matches at all now, they tend to soak it rather than clean through like it used to.
Back before they added a lot of modules it used to just nuke the tank.
? How do you mean apparently not lol.
Im positive in most my MBTs past rank 7 bar the likes of the first M1 as it was my first 10.0 back in the day and ofc the T72A turms cause i bought it and had no idea how to play.
1 completely in appropriate for a forum on tanks
2 not the same thing whatsoever.
You’re comparing stats off of a stat card which usually plagued with errors or issues.
Yet somehow the Ztz which is as you claim.almost identical to the 72B3 in fact worse so, does better in most ways.
The msc, vickers mk7 and 2A4 are extremely potent platforms though, the only thing holding the 2A4 back is the round if it had dm33 it would br 11.0.
Vickers mk7 is an unsung hero only issue is tbe ready rack but the mobility makes up for it.
What abrams the M1?
MSC is again another potent platform with a great combination of mobility armour and okay firepower.
No sht, most russian style MBTs and merkavas struggle in CQC unless you focus a lot on positioning.
Ill take the 99 II , when i can.
Most people don’t play 11.0 china due to the fact 11.7 has the JH7A , tbe Z19 heli is it? And ofc the Al khalid which suits the mobility meta people get hung up on more.
The ztz99 II and III should of.moved up with the last round of decompression , they don’t really get used much thus don’t draw much attention to themselves.
Well aware but all tbe other photos you shared with near pure green tanks must be because it was turned on.
What ? Lol the 2BM42 isn’t far off the DM33 the type 90 fires ?
You realise DM33 is also found at 10.7 same BR as the 3BM42, 3BM42 is a reliable round which can and does still work up until around 12.0
yes however I originally played the T90A and T72B3 before even getting france, germany, isreal, or china past rank 7.
i stopped playing them completely and then came back to them much alter after and still hated them massively.
If you look at the literally number of games on the dates you are showing in the video I have a mere 38 in the T90A when I used it same idea for the T72B3.
having to actually return and force myself to use them until I got the T80s sorted out.
the only T72 series type of tank I actually like and or do well with is the 90M.
like I literally said I got the russian ones first, then stopped using them because they sucked to use.
also when I first got the T-72B3 it was before 2024 lol, hell I’ve played the game since 2020 /2021 , statshark says I started in 2024 which is total nonsense.
I played about 30 odd games trying to spade the T-72B3 and then left it as I dispised it, still do.
The same for the T90A which is why it shows when I first got it having 38 battles.
Which is why if you look here, a short time after statshark says I had the T90A and T-72B3 I got the ZTZ 99 II and then III and used them substantially more and did substantially better.
just to clear it up.
I had more games at these times than i did in the russian MBTs which I had got previous then left.
Then had to come back to years later to finish the TT, I only got russia to top tier like a year or so ago lol.
EDIT: which is why I say statshark isn’t always that reliable, it’s only got data from around august of 2024.
which doesn’t truthfully show how or when a vehicle was used. Hence why I said I got the T72B3 back when it was 11.3
Maybe, but I’m not quite sure.
Maybe if we decompress more and have the 11.7s move up to 12.0, and the 12.0s move up to 12.3… etc.
Well it’s not really ideal to compare two vehicles’ stats when they are at different BRs. You could argue that the Merkava Mk.3s are better BR-for-BR than the Challenger 2 but you can’t argue that it’s a better or equivalent vehicle purely based on their difference in stats (unless the difference in performance is too large to go unnoticed, but it isn’t really the case with the Mk.3s).
Sure it can be fine at 11.7 and 12.7, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. I’m saying it’s almost guaranteed to do worse at 11.7 than at 11.3.
I know. It’s exaggerated to make the point that differences in BR means differences in environment, so it’s not really a fair comparison to say the IPM1 is better than the Challenger 2 just based on the fact that it has a better K/D.
I think the Challenger 2s can do just as well as the IPM1, if not better.
The Challenger 2 has a better round over the IPM1… unlike the M1A1, and I’ve already explained that the Challenger 2 has very good armour for an 11.7 NATO MBT, unlike the M1A1 / IPM1… along with other factors (like better hull-down survivability, better thermals, no turret basket, etc).
I’d say the M1A1, whilst META for 11.7, should be the same BR as the Type 90 and Challenger 2 (maybe with a larger first stage / quicker first-stage replenishment time).
So you’d rather have a 7s reload over 5s and then 7s?
If you keep in mind that you don’t have a 5s reload forever, you won’t get caught lacking when it finally turns to 6.5 - 7.0s. Therefore it’s always better to have a 5s reload (even if it’s temporary) and then a 7s reload than a constant 7s reload.
After the October 2025 BR changes, it seems like you haven’t been doing well with either of them:
Though you have been doing fine in the Challenger DS (which I’d say is also a good MBT).
2E / Black Night has better armour than the T-90M / 2A7s / 122s?
I don’t think so.
Yeah. Not great for what’s suppose to be Top Tier MBTs.
Agreed.
Yup.
Well, even players that do use their tanks well, ZTZ and T-90 firing better rounds doesn’t change the fact that they have longer reloads, little to no gun depression, and no reverse speed. You can often take advantage of that fact with the Challenger 2.
Same deal as with the T-90A / ZTZs. All NATO MBTs at 11.3 - 11.7 have no armour at their BR / when they get uptiered. You can lol-pen them all with L27A1 (as shown earlier) and even ammo-rack them most of the time. You can exploit that fact and kill them practically anywhere when they’re peaking, while they must hit your breech (when hull-down).
Of course, if you can’t go hull-down then they can shoot your side / drivers port / LFP, but at that point it’s fair game if you ask me.
What I’m trying to get at is that the 11.7 Challenger 2s offer something to the table at their own BR, unlike the 12.7 Challengers, which are inferior to things like the M1A2 SEP V1, Leopard 2A7 / 122s in most aspects. They are pretty good where they are.
But back in the day the Challenger 2 was only 0.3 BRs lower than the 2A7V (11.7 compared to 12.0) from what I remember.
So while that change still positively affects MBTs that the 11.7 Challenger 2s still regularly face (like the M1A1, IPM1, 11.7 Arietes, and M1 Abrams), they’re actually in a decent position now.
Again, maybe a larger first stage / quicker first-stage replenishment would be nice without buffing them too much.
Yup.
Maybe, or it could be skill issues from the enemies’ part.
I can’t verify what truly happened to be honest.
It can definitely help, but an enemy who decides to time their shot correctly will still go through it anyways… possibly even more so if they’re just shooting 3BM42.
Turret wiggling helps a lot more for tanks whose only real weakness are their breech (like the Challenger 2).
I can’t really say that was / is the case for me.
I’ve never struggled to frontally penetrate (let alone ammo-rack) Type 90s with the T-80UK / T-80UM2 or Challenger 2.
You don’t need DM53 / M829A2 to penetrate and ammo-rack the Type 90s easily.
~500mm+ pen darts usually do the job just fine.
If we were talking about aircraft then comparing stats off of their stat cards (like rate of climb, turnrate, etc) would be stupid because those stats are extremely simplistic and offer no real meaning for their flight performance.
But we are talking about tanks, and (other than a few) their stat cards do represent their attributes correctly.
Tell me an MBT whose stat cards are ‘plagued with errors or issues’.
March of this year:
The T-72B3 actually has better stats than both the ZTZ99-II and even the ZTZ99-III.
But here’s some nuance:
The T-72B3’s stats could have been artificially inflated and the ZTZ99-III / ZTZ99-II’s stats could have been artificially deflated because of the BMPT spam, but the average skill level of ZTZ99 players is better than the T-72B3 players to make up for it.
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that if the ZTZ99-III and ZTZ99-II were 11.3, their stats would be even worse.
Yes, so would you say the 2A4 / Mk.7 should be 11.0 and the ZTZ99-III, ZTZ99-II, and MSC should be 11.3? Or is a 0.7 / 0.3 BR difference reasonable?
The first-stage and the unprotected hull ammo, yes (though it means being shot in the turret may not immediately kill it via ammo-rack detonation).
Yes, the M1 Abrams.
The Merkava Mk.3s don’t do nearly as well in CQC as their 9.3 - 10.0 / 12.3 - 12.7 counterparts, but the 6s reload, great dart, good gun handling, and 24km/h reverse speed is still quite usable.
Alright, let me know when you’d be able to.
Well, my point is that the SRB community is quite creative and tries to seek out any potentially good vehicles.
I remember them immediately test the Antelope / Rapier to see if they’re worth using, to which now the Antelope could be when it comes to 10.0 GRB. The Rapier has proven itself to be worthy even all the way to 10.0.
Even funny one-off events like when the Su-22M4 was mistakenly put at 10.0.
The ZTZ-99 IIIs and ZTZ-99 IIs have been in the game for a while now so I’m certain they’ve already seen its potential and decided to take the MSC / 2A4 / M1 Abrams / Vickers Mk.7 and Obj 292 over it.
Like what?
The only ones I could think of would be the Type 90’s turret protection vs 3BM46 video (as that would make its UFP an auto-ricochet), and T-80U’s turret protection vs L27A1 video, but the point of those videos were to show that the entire turret is green for the Type 90 by using 3BM46 and that the T-80U’s turret armour isn’t better than the Challenger 2’s (which are the case regardless of that setting).
3BM42 is worse than DM33 by 24mm, which may not seem like a lot, but you can now penetrate the left (right) cheek of the M1A1 / IPM1 at any range:
And both of the cheeks of the Type 90 at any range:
Along with the fact that the Type 90s shoot their DM33 every 4s, whereas MBTs like the T-80UD/BE and T-80 U fire their 3BM42 every 6s.
Yes, you can find 6s reload 120mm DM33 with the Ariete (P) at 10.7, but what does that have to do with anything?
It doesn’t change the fact that the T-80UD / BE and Swedish T-80 U have some of the worse firepower at 11.0, and especially at 11.3+.
I’ve shown you its limitations already, which starts to show just 0.3 BR higher (with the T-80UD/BE) or at its own BR (with the T-80 U).
Though, to be fair, it’s not as bad as the MSC’s 425mm pen OFL 120 G1 with a 6s reload, but at least it gets good mobility to work with to get to sides easier or to reverse into cover in case the round fails to do anything (which can often be the case in an uptier).
3BM60 (or even 3BM46) is a major improvement to firepower to be honest (even with the slower 7s reload).
That’s true.
That’s also true.
The T-90A had 38 matches while the T-72B3 had 10 matches.
So after the ‘initial stats’, you had played 55 matches with the T-90A.
That leaves with ~40% of your total matches with the T-90A being relatively outdated, which isn’t a good way to compare stats with the more recent stats of the ZTZ99s.
After the ‘initial stats’, you had played 80 matches with the T-72B3. While that’s now only ~11% of your total matches with the T-72B3 being relatively outdated, all the 80 matches in the T-72B3 were played when it was 11.7 (and a lot of Top tier MBTs were 12.0 - 12.3).
So all of your data with the T-72B3 is outdated (as with the ZTZ99s, as they now have to face the BMPT, but no longer has to face higher BR vehicles due to the BR decompression).
taking one persons stats for a narrative is just idiotic, even if you dont preform well in the vehicle it can still be an amazing vehicle.
For example the 2S38 being a VERY strong vehicle at 10.7, still has some players that are terrible playing it.
Same applies to to everyone especially the DS
-50% win rate
Most of the stats shown from the DS prove its a very good vehicle for what it is.
All stats shown is his, not mine lmao.
He’s saying the 11.7 Challenger 2s (in their current state) are bad for 11.7, which I don’t agree with.
He isn’t saying the Challenger DS is bad:
Mm holdup, im playing the game while typing so forgive my mis understanding
OH, ok i misread terribly let me go look the the other chally stats.
I am not saying that the CR1 DS is bad, hell the exact opposite lol the challanger MK1s are some of 1 my favourite tanks in the game and some of my best 10.7s to use.
I’m saying the CR2s are statistically some of the worst higher / top tier MBTs in the game, largely due to how many little negatives they have which add up.
Though, I do better with an ariete than a CR2, It does make me glad to see you genuinely do well with the challanger 2 though by the way. Maybe you can give me some tips and tricks and we can play them together.
They’re also above courtesy of @rainy2000 he shared some of them, the CR2 stats are slightly above average.
