Move the t80UD to 10.7 or even 11.0

[_Renzo]

@An Pigeon

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.

Not sure, imo the Chally 2s are still overall better than the Merkava Mk.3s imo.

[An_Pigeon]

@__Renzo__

Not sure, imo the Chally 2s are still overall better than the Merkava Mk.3s imo.

Not saying they are better but saying they are about on par for being 11.7s as they are strong for 11.3

[An_Pigeon]

@rainy2000

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.

An Pigeon:

Eh in my experience with them they do actually quite well.

@rainy2000

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).

I’d say they are about on par with one another as I said to renzo, the Mk3s have drawbacks but also have advantages, LWS, shedloads of smokes, good round, better sustained reload.
think about the same mobility though slightly slower.

@rainy2000

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.

Only it moving up would difinitively say that.
As it still comes across strong 12.3s.

@rainy2000

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.

It’s got

• better mobility by a lot
• faster reload.
• turret traverse speeds
• accelerations
• better reverse speeds.
• Believe either the same or better gun elevation speeds.

lacks in

• armour
• overall penetration but M900 is not a bad round at all.

@rainy2000

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).

not really better survivability if the CR2 gets penned in any part of the hull it pretty much detonated due to the ridiculous ammo layout.

@rainy2000

So you’d rather have a 7s reload over 5s and then 7s?

I prefer consistently over having to guage how many shots I can take without having to wait over 30 seconds.

@rainy2000

After the October 2025 BR changes, it seems like you haven’t been doing well with either of them:

Because they’re not good tanks mate, I do better with objectively worse MBTs like the ariete and such.

@rainy2000

Though you have been doing fine in the Challenger DS (which I’d say is also a good MBT).

An Pigeon:

Because for it’s BR which is my point it’s a better tank.

@rainy2000

2E / Black Night has better armour than the T-90M / 2A7s / 122s?
I don’t think so.

go read what I said.

All MBTs armour in the game are inferior to those 2 ,refers not to the Challanger 2s, but in fact to hte STRV 122+ and the 2A7.
How on earth can you think I mean the challanger 2 has better armour than the 2A7?

@rainy2000

Yeah. Not great for what’s suppose to be Top Tier MBTs.

An Pigeon:

Because they’re not good for top tier MBTs which is my point.

@rainy2000

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.

An Pigeon:

and the poor acceleration of CR2, voids in the breach area, turret roofs and the fact the hull can be penetrated by a 2.3 TD means it’s not that great for pushing an advance on a well placed ZTZ 99 or T90.
They shouldn’t be in a position where their reverse speed is such a hinderance.

@rainy2000

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 realise the NATO MBTs have basically the same armours from 11.3 to 12.7, CR2s same armour for example, leopards bar the A7, etc etc.

@rainy2000

. You can exploit that fact and kill them practically anywhere when they’re peaking, while they must hit your breech (when hull-down).

They can shoot your breach out before your gun can peak over a ridge line you know that?

@rainy2000

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.

They can lol pen the CR2 everywhere that isn’t the turret cheeks BTW.

@rainy2000

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.

the M1A2 and 2A7 shouldn’t be the same BR as the leclercs, CR2s, etc which they are due to no compression.
The BN and 2E are better than the standard 2s.

The 2E opics are fantastic as well as a 0.50 cal good mobility but sluggish.

2BN has the gen 2 commanders thermals, and best APS in game.

@rainy2000

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.

the 2A7 was never 12.0 mate.

the CR2 got the 5 second reload before the 2 PSO was released.

@rainy2000

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.

Ariete at 11.7 has
Better mobility
profiles smaller
5 second reload
DM53.

worse optics, gen 2 thermals commander and gunner.

I take the ariete over it as it’s firepower is better overall.

@rainy2000

, they’re actually in a decent position now.

Being in a decent position doesn’t make them good though, it makes them at best, decent lol that’s my point.
The CR1s are objectively good if not pretty great for their BRs, what makes them good at their BR doesn’t reflect to the CR2 which is at best, okay for it’s BR.

@rainy2000

Maybe, or it could be skill issues from the enemies’ part.

The armour on it works a lot better on the turret than I was ever expecting, the hull not so much.

@rainy2000

Turret wiggling helps a lot more for tanks whose only real weakness are their breech (like the Challenger 2).

An Pigeon:

Believe me it helps the M1A1 lol, can take a kill shot from DM53 and make it only a half crew shot for example.

@rainy2000

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.

Okay , I’ve had them since before the addition of modules and all that and they could be penned through the turret and ammo racked by even 3BM42.
Now it’s only the absolute highest pen rounds like M829A2 or DM53 that will definitely go clean through it.

@rainy2000

You don’t need DM53 / M829A2 to penetrate and ammo-rack the Type 90s easily.
~500mm+ pen darts usually do the job just fine.

Again, not always, in actual matches the RNG of the auto loaders and ammo means they survive a lot more than they should.
If a 500+ pen round was all it needed the TKX P wouldn’t be 12.0 and the Type 90s 11.7 lol, the addition of all the modules and such increased their survivability compared to when rounds would skim clean through and detonate ammo,

@rainy2000

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.

russian MBT stats right now are artificially inflated literally becuase of the BMPT spam lol hence why the Arena still has a 0.98 KD but a 57 percent win rate.

@rainy2000

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 vickers mk7 potentially could be 11.0 mate, the 2A4 would need a better round.

@rainy2000

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).

I mean it’s a 2A4 hull, it has the same issues as a 2A4 hull does.

@rainy2000

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.

okay let’s not confuse squadron battles with pubs.
They’re two completely seperate things which have two completely different METAs lol.

They focus in Sqb on mobility, firepower then protection which iswhy they use the vickers mk7 and not CR1s.

the leopard 2 and M1 abrams are arguably tied for the best 10.7s in game with only one drawback being their ammo selection. Give them m883 or DM33 and they would bounce to 11.0.

MSC is a fantastic platform which again mobility and firepower but has okay armour.

the ZTZ 99 II and III follow a slower more methodical approach same idea as a chieftain does.

@rainy2000

Obj 292 over it.

Decent mobility and a round which lol pens almsot anything.

@rainy2000

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).

Teh photos you shared didn’t show the ammo used the angle nor ranges or camera angle lol.

@rainy2000

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:

exaclty it’s not far off of it hence my point.
Type 90 is firing DM33 at 11.7 3BM42 is found at 10.3.

@rainy2000

And both of the cheeks of the Type 90 at any range:

Not at any range + it’s only going to hit the FCS and one crew, not set the ammo off.
REMEMBER the type 90 breach is a hole in teh front not it’s cheeks.

@rainy2000

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+.

a consistent 6 second reload at 11.0 with 3BM42 is still better than the likes of the MSC and such? .

11.3 it get’s longer in the tooth which is what I’ve already said. It’s useable.

@rainy2000

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).

T80UD as my point said has the armour of higher BR tanks to compensate for that.

@rainy2000

3BM60 (or even 3BM46) is a major improvement to firepower to be honest (even with the slower 7s reload).

An Pigeon:

Obviously it is, much like M829A1 is a jump comapred to the M829

@rainy2000

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.

again the “more recent” stats of the ZTZ isn’t true either as I showed.
I played more than 60 percent of my gmaes in the T90 After having got the ZTZs.

objectively I do better at 11.7 - 12.7 with the CR1 and Khalid which is a 9.3 than the fking CR2s lol

I used a respawn on the CR2 as well as I have it with a talisman and what not.

[_Renzo]

@An Pigeon

Not saying they are better but saying they are about on par for being 11.7s as they are strong for 11.3

@An Pigeon

better sustained reload.

Afaik the Merkava Mk.3s only have a 5 round ready rack for their 6.3 second expert reload, so not really a better sustained reload. The Chally 2 advabtsges are much more worthwhile, as half the Mk.3 advantages are barelt useful in tank on tank engagement.

The Chally 2 deserves the higher BR.

[Panther2995]

@__Renzo__

The Chally 2 deserves the higher BR

Or they can just fix the Merkava 3’s armor, buff their reload rate to 5 seconds and put it them to 11.7-12.0

Personally I prefer my Ra’am Sagol to sit at 11.7-12.0 with those buffs.

[_Renzo]

I would absolutely prefer that option too, but on the other hand it’s and Israeli vehicle and this is Gaijin. So I don’t hold high expectations.