It has good armor yes, but it has many flaws that prevent it from being any higher than 10.7 in my books (so it doesn’t face 9.3)
1 Like
7.7 is not enough. Take em to 7.3. They are not on par with the 7.7 Meteor F Mk.4 G.41F.
Im well aware of those.
Well then I am lucky I am arguing for it to go to 10.7.
Any higher, with current BR placements and top BR, wouldnt make sense, seeing as there is still the T-80UD/BE and T 80 U below the standard T-80U.
1 Like
Also, add PL-7 to the Q-5L and bring it to 10.3 to match the A-5C.
In vacuum of course KV-122 can kill leopard 2A7V. But I`m talking about real game. Armor of T-80UD is good, agree, but with -4km/h reverse speed will it help a lot against sniper shots into the breech for example? Also dense layout increases the chance of a one-shot. 6 sec reloading speed isnt unique on this br. Mobility isnt worst, sure, but for example Leopard will take good position much faster, especially on large hilly map. Maybe we talking about different games, but today even very average player knows weak spots of all soviet MBTs. Oh sure, “suffering” 9.3 tanks also kill T-80UD and quite often. Baseline features of the tank must match its BR. Not all eSports players, not all play on minimum settings, and I wouldn’t want to stare at the screen with all my might, trying to spot among the bushes another Leopard, hung with bushes, who has long since taken up position and is waiting for me like in a shooting gallery. Especially on 11.7 uptier.
Think about why ppl don’t spawn planes at those brs.
2 Likes
In vacuum even Gepard can kill T-80UD ;)
the armor makes it harder for penetrating shot to happen in the first place; plus the usual fuel tanks shenanigans.
6 sec reload is only beaten by M1 Abrams (with much worse shell) and Challenger 1s (4 round ready rack capacity) with at least expert crew and fully trained loader (and maybe few tanks im forgeting, but im sure someone will correct me). Also it kinda depends on the loader of those tanks having his cranium intact.
T-80UD gets 6 secound out of the box, its not dependent on crew level and loader being alive and its for entire carousel (whenever that is accurate is matter to debate).
There are also many tanks with worse reloads. My 150lvl expert crew on Leopard 2A4 reloads 6.4 and I am nowhere near close to having free Ace, meaning for my Leopard 2A4 to match the RoF of T-80UD I have to shill out what, 2000 GE for each Leopard 2A4 to have same capability as T-80UD, that will go away as soon as I have to scrap my loader into the bucket?
Sure, both Leopard 2A4 and Abrams dominate on open maps with lot of hulldown poisitions. However both Leopard 2A4 and Abrams will also have troubles pushing the same approaches as T-80UD since it they have inferior armor sche,e, making them worse on urban maps.
and even average player knows the weakspots on Leopard 2A4 and Abrams, point being?
T-80UD is extremely dominant in downtiers.
And for the last time, and I will NOT be repeating myself, you are ignoring the features that actually make T-80UD stand out when compared to its competitors and as you put it, “match its BR”, namely you not once mentioning how 3BM42 is superior to both Abrams and Leopard 2A4 shell.
Cease this behaviour at once.
Youre not arguing in a good will.
Not everyone will play T-80UD to its weaknesses either. Sure, it lacks thermals, but it doesnt need thermals in CQB situations.
problem of uptiers is not unique to the T-80UD.
Like, T-80UD cant go to 10.7 because it can meet 11.7, what does that mean for M1 Abrams with M774 thats already 10.7 and thus can see 11.7?
2 Likes
Looking at stats, IS-6 hardly looks OP.
Always confuses me when people use the argument of uptiers to justify under BRed vehicles.
Like sure, X might struggle vs Y in a full uptier, but what about things fighting X in a full uptier? (especially premiums, perticuarly popular ones too, that act as vacuums sucking people in from below)
1 Like
This list is pretty bad in general ngl, def one of the worst ones ive seen
5 Likes
its quite a bit better than the IS4M the only reason it has bad stats is cause the players who play it are usually noobs just picking up the game cause its a premium
it was dropped to 7.3 a while ago and was unbeatable at that br
Id be fine if people really think such argument through.
“X suffers against Y which sits at higher BR; thus X must be lowered in BR”- completly overlooking the fact that entire BR range is struggling against Y. In such casese, we shouldnt be calling for X to be adjusted, but rather Y going up.
1 Like
Better than anything you, morvran, or carenavron will ever come up with.
One of them got mad lol
Yeah, that too
some uptiers are just to unfair right now like 13.3 but even that doesnt justify a vehicle going down all 13.3s should go to 13.7
? Dude i don’t even try really with these because my gripes are with niche vehicles nobody plays and thus wont earn any traction anyways. No reason to voice something on a platform the devs really dont look at
1 Like
It’s 2026 and people still parrot this nonsense.
1 Like
this is true tho ?
premiums almost always have lower KDs than tech tree versions just do to the absurd surplus of bad players playing them
1 Like
From all my research they are extremely similar, to the point they are almost the same cannon bar a few differences.
Rarden: 0.003 meters longer barrel
Slightly heavier projectile
2a72: higher ROF
They use the same kind of material for projectiles and all.
It makes little sense there’s a what, 38mm pen difference gap?
I think the Rarden is 110mm, and the 2a72 on the btr should actually be penning about 94-98mm RHA
Premiums don’t perform worse than their TT copies.
It doesn’t take you long to compare same vehicles found in TT and as a premium. Click Bait vs HC, KVT vs M1, 2A4s, …
1 Like