Here’s the money and keep the change while you’re at it.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Genuinely very valid points, however:
T-80UD should not face 9.3.
1 Like
I remember the time the TURMS and Chieftain Mk.5 used to face eachother
Leaving out the winrate etc. in that screenshot is also very cool.
Yet I perform significantly better than you in anything russian that I did play so far.
So do I in almost every other vehicle.
not coastal
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Chieftain already faces 9.3 T-72A, it is not much different.
2 Likes
It was different when the TURMS could sit at the back of the map and abuse the Gen 2 TVD
Doing things in the test range is not the same as in game, and yes you can 7.62 is, just like you can an m163.
Yes I was wrong in that aspect, if in an isolated environment you can damage the gun with a 7.62.
There, unlike the rest of the forum users, I’ll admit I’m wrong, but your also wrong for thinking that’s possible in a match.
Vehicle: Stalingrad
Gamemode: Naval Arcade, Naval Realistic
BR Change: 7.7 → 7.3
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.
Gotcha, Thanks a ton!
Corner camping, and sacrificing teammates isn’t skillful, just so you know.
I don’t do any cheap tactics.
Also the screenshot wasn’t “intentionally” cut off like your inferring. Again, that only hinders your argument
Not common. You rarely see people sitting in some obscure corner of the map.
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.
Subjective experience. Though you could also say this to me.
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?
1 Like
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.
Whatever you do with T-80UD, its clearly not working.
Is it? I doubt it. But 3BM59 should already be in the game.