To reduce subjectivity, I deliberately started this discussion with vehicle characteristics rather than personal gameplay impressions. I focused on what features a vehicle should reasonably have at a given BR. For example, I pointed out that at 10.7 a tank is expected to have baseline tools such as thermals or a usable reverse speed. I did not argue based on how these vehicles perform in the hands of exceptionally skilled or inexperienced players.
One possible reason is sample size. Even a single good match can easily create the impression that a vehicle is exceptionally strong, even if its overall performance across many battles is average or inconsistent. That is exactly why I prefer to rely on vehicle characteristics rather than isolated gameplay outcomes.
From the very beginning, my point was that at 10.7 the T-80UD lacks baseline features expected at that BR, such as thermals or adequate reverse speed. This is not a matter of assumptions or personal experience - it is a comparison of vehicle capabilities. For reference, the T-80B already has these features at 10.7.
According to this logic, does that mean I have no right to participate in balance discussions about vehicles I have played for 1000+ battles? I don’t think that’s a reasonable approach.
I fully agree that some vehicles - for example the BMPT - were genuinely overpowered at 10.3 or even 10.7. However, the 2S38 is nowhere near the BMPT in terms of overall impact and dominance.
There is also an obvious contradiction here: the vehicles being described as “toxic” and “overpowered” belong to the same USSR lineup that often suffers from early team collapses at this BR. If those vehicles were truly as dominant as claimed, this outcome would be difficult to explain.
I think we’ve reached a point where further discussion won’t be productive.
We clearly approach balance from different perspectives, and I don’t see new arguments being introduced.
I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t really know what you’re talking about, but as a Russian main, there is no point in talking with people that play NATO nations because they would hyperfocus on certain aspects where the Russian tanks are better and basically ignore where the Russian tanks are worse than NATO ones.
Reason:
The Stalingrad is at best a sidegrade to the Kronshtadt. Your armour, and as a result survivability, is way worse, and while you have better guns, that improvement does not warrant the Stalingrad being higher.
Stalingrad’s 18 cm belt is ~21 percent thinner than the Kronshtadt’s. Stalingrad’s guns have only ~8 percent better reload, and ~8 percent more pen (10km 0 deg) compared to the Kronshtadt.
The Stalingrad only improves on the Kronshtadt in areas where the Kronshtadt was already strong and an improvement would not be much noticeable. However, it regresses in survivability, where the Kronshtadt already struggled - and the Stalingrad suffers even more due to its higher BR.
It was common, I had to face it when spading the Mk.5. Not to mention L15A3 did struggle on the AV hull and turret due to ERA and the old damage model.
I have a question for all of you here because I see a lot of people want the Abrams SEP V3 in the game because it has better armor than the V2. Do you think that Russia, as a nation that kind of has one of the worst round in the game, should get the 3BM59, which is in capabilities close to a DM 53?
While overlooking the advantages T-80UD does have over 2A4/M1.
Single good match?
I have 204 games in it.
And once again, you focus on what T-80UD lacks when compared to 2A4/M1 while deliberately ignoring the things T-80UD has over them.
Its getting really tiring.
No one claimed that. What was attacked was your ability to objectively assess the vehicle performance since you cant make said vehicle work nor do you have any experience fighting against it, both really strong indications of biased opinion.
Yet theres 24% difference between our winrates despite playing the same tank in the same matchmaker with the same teams.
Your 36.8% winrate is even below global average for T-80UD, which sits at 52% for December 2025/43% all time global with clearly rising trend.
