Practically speaking they are the same vehicle, and in-fact I would argue that the T-55A is better in most regards. The only advantage the T-62 has is it’s minimally better performance in ranged, semi-hull down engagements, due to it’s higher gun velocity and minimally more favorable armor profile in these sort of engagements.
These sort of engagements are rare in War Thunder. The T-55A performs much better at close range, which is what usually happens in this game. So either move decompress the BRs in general, and move both of them to 8.7 (which won’t happen) or make the T-62 8,3 as well. There is no reason to have separate BRs for these two machines, as they are practically the same. Only trading some features to have different quirks between each other.
It is pretty unfair to wiggle given the tank. It’s not a mechanic, it’s a limitation. It shouldn’t be allowed to occur, and you do it, it should break the turret ring after 2-3 wiggles back and forth, it’s like a transmission in a man or of speaking
Again, this is a game, not real life. It’s perfectly fine for some things to not work exactly as in real life. I don’t think i need to explain why adding occasional breakdown of tank’s components would be a bad idea for a multiplayer game.
Also, a turret ring wouldn’t break if you wiggled the whole tank rather than the turret which is what most players usually do, no?
I guess this mechanic could be somehow introduced as a non random mechanic based on tank’s modules durability and how player uses the tank, but i still think it would be rather unfun and if at all it should only come to Simulator mode.
I think the same about the t55 that will be on 9.0. 279 is much better than the t55 in every way - mobility/gun/armor. So it’s probably logical that 279 should also go up
A-10C
Mode Ground realistic battles.
12.0->11.7 or 11.3 like soviet counterpart su-25Tand su-39
Slow strike aircraft , where main soviet counterpart what has vikhrs , better speed , ir jammers,targeting pod .
A10 has 6 mavericks and SU’s has 2 tv missiles , 2 laser missiles and 16 vikhrs on top loadout.
In this current state a10C also has to deal constantly against fox 3 slingers on ground games what su’s doesnt have to meet so often in 11.3 lineup.
(GRB) Kfir C.10 12.7 > 12.0 — third generation aircraft with 4 arhs and 2 laser bombs. Not even close to rafales, eurofighters and su-30. No IR missiles (at this br the python-3 is not a missile, because most enemy pilots don’t even need to do anything with it due to the presence of maw on their aircraft, which defeats missile by itself).
Only if they separated the engines and made it so if you had at least one functional you could still traverse. But even then if the transmission at the front is taken out you’re not going anywhere.
Well nobody else has a 4s reload on a practically endless supply of 50rds, so this seems more than fair to me. You also get an LRF before most other nations do.
(GRB) Kurnass 2000 11.3 > 11.3 — keep its BR. On 11.7 there is a Harrier with high-explosive Mavericks and a quality container. On 12.0 there is already a Harrier with 9M and 120.
For example Su-39 has better anti-air capabilities due to the R-73 (the best IR missile in the game against missiles without irccm in the K2K), a much larger number of high-precision missiles, a radar with ACQ modes (with an upward view, which allows you to throw the R-73 in a rate fight) and TWS. This jet doesnt get its BR increased and its not even playing against S1… but you have to play against them on a phantom rofl.
If you increase BR of Kurnass, you should do it with Su-25T/39 as well. Otherwise it seems unfair.
So, both are 8.7 boats for now. Same reload, don’t lie — practically the same firepower. That extra 10 mm doesn’t really matter for them. No thermals (gen 2 btw), no drones, no spotting, no turret — one stays at 8.7, the other doesn’t , less mobile then a strv 103 ???