OF-40 Mk.2A and (MTCA) is not a vehicle that should be at BR 9.0 lower it to BR 8.7, does anyone else feel the same?

OF-40 Mk.2A and (MTCA) in my opinion should not stand at BR 9.0, if you look at Russia we have T-62 tanks that have better armour, and shell characteristics with better armour penetration than the OF-40 Mk.2A and (MTCA), but T-62 stands at lower BR 8.7

2 Likes

The OF-40s have far superior gun handling and mobility. Also better reloads and laser rangefinders.

7 Likes

T-62 IS literally a T-55A with bigger gun, garbage at its br

Meanwhile XM-1 and MBT/KPZ70 at 9.3 with 280pen ammo: 0_0

As someone who has played both T-62/T-62M-1, OF-40MTCA (which is very good), I will disagree.
T-62 is garbage at its BR, its worse T-55A at higher BR for no real reason.
T-62M-1 does have improved armour however it saves only in full downtiers, ammo choice and their performance is nice but at the same time mobility which wasnt nice to begin with gets slaughtered, for no reason in particialar Gaijin decides to choose inferior optics that IRL are for ATGMs only while IRL superior optics are not modeled in game. Though addition of smokes is nice and probably second biggest change after new ammo choices.
T-62s also have horrible reload rates, even after their changes.

OF-40MTCA… Its so good man. It seems to have better mobility than most 9.0 MBTs all together, it has nice turret traverse unlike any soviet tank at same BR, while it’s shells are slightly worse than T-62M-1 (20mm 60Β° difference) it still does the job and lol-pens anything 8.0-9.3 related, after that you might have to aim, but thats okay. That thing survives much more than T-62M-1, thats for sure. Yes you can say its paper armour, however I think thats what helped me to survive things I shouldnt have. Also I somehow mamage to tank HEAT and ATGMs in it for no reason.

Kinda wish for T-62MV at 9.3 with same ammo choice as T-62M-1 but it has 1st gen thermal sight. Since that literally means Gaijin cant pull 8x fixed optics (for ATGMs as it was literally removed)out of their ass and has to go with actual 3,5-7.0 any T-62 tank uses, instead of unlogically using ATGM (8x fixed) sights it would only use for ATGM IRL ( There are people who bug reported it, its Devs choice to use unlogical sights, you cant even change that anyhow.).
Would be a nice rival to Leopard 1A5 in several TTs, Type 74 G Kai, M-60A3 TTS in few TTs.

First of all, DM23 is better than any shell T-62 has.

Not true, DM23 (penetration: 337mm / muzzle velocity: 1455m/s) has a lower penetration than 3BM3 (penetration: 350mm / muzzle velocity:1615m/s) avoid creating misinformation, I recognise that the OF-40 has better speed, but it seems strange to me that it is put at a higher BR than the T-62 which has better armour and better shells to use.

1 Like

DM23 will do better against composite armor.

It has much more than just better speed.

T-62’s armor is literal cheese when shot at with any main cannon round that’s common at that BR, so simply put, it’s armor isn’t effective against vast majority of threats.

1 Like

T-62’s armor is literal cheese when shot at with any main cannon round that’s common at that BR, so simply put, it’s armor isn’t effective against vast majority of threats.

It’s always better to have some armour like the T-62 than to not have it like in the case of the OF-40 that you get destroyed by a 20mm calibre even if you get shot from the front.

However, Gaijin’s policy has always been that if you have better shells then you have to be at a higher BR, the T-62 actually has better shells than the OF-40 but is at a lower BR.

1 Like

Thats misinformation, DM23 offers better choice than two shells T-62 has: better than both of them in both 0Β° and 60Β° pen. T-62 has worse mobility, worse reload, worse turret traverse, worse depression, its armour is nothing special, in fact worse than T-55A at 8.3, can be easily penned and oneshotted by WW2 late guns. T-62 also lacks .50 cal as devs didnt bother to module the version which did have it. T-62 also lacks any rangefinder, as the model with laser rangefinder is not present in game. We have the earliest T-62 from 1961 against 80s OF-40 in a 0.3 BR difference.

Sometimes I enjoy reading topics like this, which make me laugh a lot.

Thats misinformation, DM23 offers better choice than two shells T-62 has: better than both of them in both 0Β° and 60Β° pen.

That and misinformation, from 0Β° the 3BM3 offers better penetration than the DM23 at close range. OF-40 doesn’t have a 50 calibre, only (MTCA) does.

Leaving aside the people who came here just to insult me and I avoid replying to them because I don’t want to stoop to their level, from what I understand from the speeches you have made the 2 OF-40 vehicles are a BR superior because of 2 features:

  1. Mobility
  2. Laser rangefinder.

Vehicles equivalent to OF-40 Mk2A at 9.0: Magach 6M, Shot Kal Dalet, ZTZ88, Type 74, Leopard A1A1, M60A3 TTS.

T-62 at 9.0 has worse pen as well. @MotorolaCRO

You forgot about much better reload and gun handling.

Mobility (forward, backwards, HP/T ratio), laser rangefinder, turret traverse in both planes, depression, reload rate, penetration at angle which matters the most.
These are all advantadges of OF-40 MK2 and MTCA over T-62.
Yet for some reason you account only two of these.

At least it meant that players are seriously discussing about Italy. If we say it is at between 10/10(4.0/10.3) and 4/10(top tier) throughout the entire game, the playerbase considers it like literally 2/10 the entire time.
But still the OF-40 MTCA is literally better than the T-62 in every aspect bar some armor. I brought it only after finishing the Italian tree for a lineup farming SL and ngl it worked nicely.

Well, these are the two that makes the mk2a/mtca much better at most conditions. It can traverse fast on maps like maginot and mozdok and bully tanks with LRF, it may also swiftly retreat.
Also 8-16x optics against i think 8x fixed is a huge improvement.

Yeah, I know that, as I am another owner of OF-40MTCA, I bought months ago and has been only happy about it.

T-62 has correct 3,5-7 times scope which is correct but T-62M-1 at 9.0 has fixed 8x which is innacurate and unlogical (it should have same optics as T-62) but bug reports to fix that has been only denied.
@ζ±‰εŸŽζˆ˜θ½¦ι“_μž₯νƒœμ™„

Compare it to the Leo 1A1A1 at the same BR with the same firepower, armour, and mobility without LRF.