Namer's at same br as bmpt

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
101

You mean where Russia has historically outperformed other major nations for literal years now as they fight tanks that are sub-par outside of mobility (and even then, it’s a VERY minor difference when most maps in game are sub 2 square km and are knife fights for these tanks, giving the advantage to more armor v penetration capability at range. Don’t believe me? Just check out WT Data Project as they’ve have years of data). They COULD either increase the BR cap or, what the community has been asking for years now, is change the BR spread from +/- 1.0BR to +/-0.7BR for ground battle matchmaking which could help or don’t base balancing off player stats. Realistically, the average KD in WT is like 0.6. This has actually left minor nations and niche vehicles STRUGGLING as usually players start with the US, Germany, USSR or UK so you get good players playing smaller nations/those vehicles and they are absolutely GOD AWFUL for other players. For example, look at how much the Char 25t moved up xD

102

Counter point of what ? You literally can’t understand that time of production won’t have role in balancing.

T-90/72 literally has 4km reverse it’s really one of the biggest weakness it has you just wrong. Every T series tank has given autoloader module that will stop any reload when broken even manual one which is unrealistic.

103
  1. So explain how the 105mm M1 Abrams from 1980 stuck with the 1980 round is “balanced” against the T90A from 2005 using the 2016 round and there is only a 0.3 BR difference. “BuT mY rEvErSe SpEeD” isn’t a valid argument seeing how the T90A literally can just point click anywhere on the M1 105mm while you have to pixel snipe in reverse.

Going from 10.3 to 12.0 (10.3 for -1.0BR on the M1 105mm and 12.0 for +1.0BR on the T90A),
the T90A is in the top 10 for WR (at 60.78%) v the M1 105mm at the bottom 13 for WR (at 42.77%). There’s 74 tanks for the US and USSR in that BR range…

  1. And? That’s literally a part of the tank IRL. Again, blame Russian engineers for that. So why is it that Russia gets IRST on their MBTs (which I literally haven’t been able to find any data on them having to include open source US military sources) while the US and Germany didn’t get it? Why doesn’t Russian MBTs have their turret traverse motor or electronic control boxes modeled?

And yeah… turns out if you break an autoloader, it can’t load xD If that’s the case you want to push, why doesn’t the NATO tanks take manual control of the turret (which takes all of mere seconds to engage IAW open source operation manuals) when you knock the remote electronic/hydraulic controls out?

104

This just shows that there is no bias every one standing on one level.

Both T-90A and M1 Abrams have similar K/D only diffirence here is winrate which indicates problem is not between these tanks.

Then you can blame German or American engineers for not adding IRST.

Motor is literally there.

105

  1. … what? It’s literally part of the tank. If it was “one standing on one level”, then all NATO tanks should get air tracking capability LIKE THEY SHOULD and the Russian tanks should have their turret traverse modules added like promised two years ago.

  2. Gotta look at the lineup. The M1 is really the only option to run at that point in the US TT until you get the M1A1, which there’s 0 reason NOT to just run that instead as it’s the upgrade M1 105mm, unless you replace the 120S with it for mobility reasons. The top 3 US tanks by over 1000 matches are the M1, M1 KVT and the Wolfpack for the US. For Russia, you’ve got a pretty close and solid lineup to run, which also means less seasoned players are going to stick with it before moving on to another tank. It looks like a lot more players are playing the T90A recently though as the match count has about doubled in the past month and the K/B has risen significantly (by about 0.7).

  3. My point is that German/American engineers made a system that would work identically in game that isn’t being added.

  4. The motor (which is part of the 2E42M1 system) literally isn’t modeled, which the device to the left is the hydroelectric pump for cannon elevation and the hydroelectric pump for rotation is there in the middle on the deck. Specifically, this is from a T-80U. The only thing Gaijin has added is the controls on the turret track.
    image

1 Like
106

It doesn’t.

That is not motor.

107

  1. You laze the target and track it. It’s close enough to how Gaijin models IRST (as that’s how any other IRST works if it gives you range IRL) that they should get it. But you’re clearly a Russian main so I can’t say I’m too surprised you would be upset about other nations getting equal mechanics.

  2. It literally is part of the motor system. Tankograd: T-80

108

Can this finally die?

The A2T is not a SEPv3.

1 Like
109

If it isn’t the M1A2 SEP v3, then why does the M1A2T have the low-profile APU exhaust in the back left that only the v3 has? I agree IRL it’s the M1A2 SEP v2, but that’s not what they did in game. I’m currently banned from bug reporting for like half a month still after I bug reported the AH-1G/Tzefa A/Tzefa B pilot sight multiple times after they kept going “it’s not a bug” on it being sighted to the chin turret and not the underwing pylons like the 1967 and 1973 Flight Manual report, so I sadly can’t report it yet.

110

Do you see IRST locking tank and choosing correct adjustment for it ? You have no idea what automatic lead is.

So you wan’t MORE MODULE in game ? Didnt learnt lesson from last time.

So giving better reverse for T-series is no no but devs must give something that doesn’t exist for Abrams ? No no blame American engineers and shut up.

111

  1. Do you even know what I’m talking about? The Leopard and Abrams ballistic computer can also lead for helicopters.

  2. Literally yes. Russian tanks are quite literally missing the same modules NATO tanks have in game.

  3. The Abrams can track helicopters with their ballistic computer xD Idk what you’re going on about with Russian tanks having poor reverse speed as that’s something they have to deal with IRL.

112

No you just incompetent calling motor something isn’t motor and expecting that if that would be added as module only to T-series but in reality digging your own grave.

Oh wow does it have IRST that realized in game ? No it doesn’t go blame engineers or something.

113

  1. So do explain how the T-series tanks rotate their turret then? Cause they sure as hell aren’t rotating it by hand.

  2. Neither do any of these tanks as it isn’t IRST IRL. It’s an active gunner track using the laser for the ballistic computer. So again, why does the Leopard and Abrams not get the same mechanic?

114

Everything mechanical that should move turret is realized in T-series if you wan’t add electrics in game be ready to it added to Abrams.

Because it’s not the same mechanics

115

  1. The hydraulics for the Abrams turret control and the electronic system for the Leopard has been modeled and a damage model for over a year now… have you not been paying attention to other nations?

  2. The MBTs that have it in game don’t have IRST either IRL but that’s how it’s modeled in game.

116

Not in level you wan’t.

It’s not my problem in what you believe.

117

What are you on about? It’s literally fully modeled in game; where did you think the turret basket damage model come from? Also, you have provided no actual counter argument with photos of the vehicles or model names so what are you even arguing?

1 Like
118

You quite dishonest on way arguing things in one moment you say devs must add something doesn’t exist in Abrams and Leo tanks an IRST but adding reverse to T-series better reverse speed is just not an option. And now you saying to T series should have generator which is part of whole electical system pretending that is something else and Leo/Abrams has it.

For what ? That motor isn’t a motor ?

119

  1. Because NONE of the tanks have IRST the way it is modeled in game. Gunners track targets manually and laser it and the ballistic computer offsets the barrel for lead for the indexed round, to include for low flying aircraft/helicopters. The Leopard 2 and the Abrams operate in the same fashion yet, for some reason, don’t have it in game as well. I’m asking you, why is that? It’s a lacking mechanic for some reason even though other MBTs with the “IRST track” for aircraft operate the same IRL. Versus you trying to argue for something that literally doesn’t exist. The T-72s have poor reverse speed due to the single speed reverse gear as they were designed to be the cheaper tank to take the brunt in losses while the T80 series was the better but more expensive MBT, which included a better transmission. It genuinely sounds like you have no idea how these series of tanks work or the doctrine behind them. Also, do you believe the T-series tanks have manually rotated and elevated turrets? How do you think the gyroscopic stabilizer works then? It requires motors, electronics and hydraulics to do so.

  2. So again, how do you think the T-series tanks rotate their turret?

1 Like
120

They do have an FCS function similar enough to an ‘IRST’ in real life, it’s called auto-lead.

And now you saying to T series should have generator which is part of whole electical system pretending that is something else and Leo/Abrams has it.

image

image
image1197×801 316 KB

Because they for some reason don’t have the electronics nor hydraulic motors that do power the turret steering.

Here’s an actual photo of them…

image

2 Likes