Inside of 600 meters, most modern rounds can penetrate our armor.
The question is whether they can perforate our armor.
This isn’t a calculable thing often because of variations in ammunition and armor, velocity of rounds, and angle of attack.
The downside is that Gaijin cannot show round deformation, and instead treats round as though they are solid objects that continue to stay intact, period, thus allowing DM53, 3BM60, or others to penetrate completely through as though they were solid, rather than as the cut-up bits that they would actually be if they were to perforate into the crew compartment.
Lol last time when I was this early, they complained about the size of Obroms being at disadvantage, then I conveniently snuck in the slow reload of soviet mbts. They replied: “blame Soviets for their shitty design of autoloading module!”
Also taking that heatmap at face value and using the argument that it would show underperformance of a nations vehicles then it follows that every german vehicle between 3.0-10.0 is notably underperforming and in need of a buff.
Meanwhile france is overperforming in comparison to other nations and should receive some slight nerfs across the board.
Out of its contemporaries, most are derivatives packing 120s and 125s. Couple light tanks, which are intended to spot and engage from flanks.
Directly above them at 11.0 are Chinese tanks with DWT 125s with over 500mm of pen.
Beneath them at 10.3 are T72s with 125s with over 475mm of pen.
I’m failing to see your explanation of M774 being “one of the best tank (rounds)”.
The M1 has 370mm of turret armor from direct front.
Meaning it can be reliably penned at any frontal angle outside of 1,500 meters, and inside 700 meters, it’s still getting through. That’s just the turret, we’re not going into the hull, which would cleave apart turret ring, hydraulic reservoir, and engine.
So basically you’re saying you’re OK with the M1 being a light tank, not a main battle tank.
This is why you don’t balance purely off player performance. Which you admit you allow so long as it doesn’t regard the M1.
You even admit that high skill players use French more than low skill, and thus they are suitable for engaging. But you ignore that their guns are reliable within their BRs.
So instead of nerfing for balance, how about buffing to their appropriate expected threat levels?
This is why you don’t balance purely off player performance. Which you admit you allow so long as it doesn’t regard the M1.
Not related. Vehicles are not balanced only off of blanket win rates of a nation at a BR. They are balanced based off the average performance of the vehicles. You have also entirely missed the glaringly obvious point made by myself and a few others as to why that third party chart is not a valid base for an argument of vehicle balance.
You even admit that high skill players use French more than low skill, and thus they are suitable for engaging. But you ignore that their guns are reliable within their BRs.
I never said that, stop inventing things I never said. I said that using the same argument and reasoning being used to argue that the M1 is underperforming based on WRs on that third party chart, the french line is overperforming given they perform above average across almost the entire tree on that chart so their vehicles must obviously need nerfed. As evidenced by that chart apparently the entire german line is massively underperforming between 3.0-10.0 so is in dire need of significant buffs within that range.
Player skill apparently isn’t a factor that is worthy of mentioning based on dinfires beliefs and does not play a part in vehicle capabilities. You can’t propose that german vehicles are performing worse through the 3.0-10.0 bracket because of player factors. It is evidently a problem with the vehicles that needs to be addressed.
Incidentally the M774 can still go through the same areas that are green in this image at 2000m. Can still also go through the LFP and the UFP at that range too as far as protection analysis is concerned.
I’ll look at doing some in-game testing with someone later in the day to confirm what protection analysis says at certain ranges and also beyond 2000m.
No, you inferred what I apparently meant. I simply used the reasoning provided to show that the M1 was underperforming in capabilities based on that chart and applied it to other nations in that chart. As you’ve already established before you do not believe that skill is a worthwhile factor and does not impact vehicle performance so it is irrelevant.
I’m eagerly looking forward to france being brought in-line with other countries in the future and germany to get its long overdue buffs to it’s near entire tech tree.
You already admitted, as well as other detractors, that none of you play on long range maps often.
Which is to say, you don’t play the M1 often enough to even be able to say the M774 is reliable outside 1,200 meters.
Necrons cut himself out by referencing two tanks with 600mm of KE protection now at 11.3 to give you all “experience”, when said IPM1 has M833 as a first tier round, and M900 as a fourth-tier round.
You’re actively stonewalling by your own admission here:
“I’m already seeking justice for them by being against buffing one of the best MBTs at that BR bracket.”
That’s not seeking justice, that’s stonewalling for the sake of being too conservative with your numbers and not playing the vehicle yourselves in the actual game.
You can test until your heart is content, it doesn’t match up against 16 players to see how you fare.
