There is, you just twist the definition to fit your belief
3 Likes
10.7 died to save 9.3. Now 10.7 needs saving.
10.7 would be my favourite BR if it wasn’t permanently uptiered, fighting drones and insanely strong CAS every game.
10.7 [previously 10.3] was already saved when 12.0 went from 11.0 to 12.0.
An additional problem is that Germany is one of only two nations without a TT MBT between 10.7 and 12.0 so if you’re uptiered you’ve got no support
What? But all you keep doing is claiming that there is no compression in Top Tier at all and that it’s no legitimate concern. Why are you contradicting yourself again? You claim that you do (X), yet you actively do (Y).
Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A7V are the exact same BR even though 2A7V has significantly better armor (full front hull add-on package reducing vulnerable area by 50%), significantly better electronics (3rd gen vs 1st gen), significantly better survivability (hull fully coated in spall liners) and improved firepower (L/55 over L/44).
Leopard 2PL, which has significantly worse armor (barely 11.0-level), survivability (no spall liners at all) and firepower (100+mm less of pen) than Leopard 2A7V, is just 0.3 BRs below it.
Ariete AMV is the same BR as Leopard 2A7HU.
105mm, non-DU, 1984, long-phased out IPM1 is forced to face 2020s Leopard 2A7s- and it doesn’t even take a full uptier for that.
Why are there Arietes and base Challenger 2s just 0.3 BRs below the very best tanks in the entire game? Is that no sign of compression?
Etc.
7 Likes
Not sure why your post is claiming decompression is both x and y.
There was compression at top BR… when the top was 10.3 [T-72B3].
T-72B3 is now 11.7 and no longer faces AMX-40s, XM-1s, FV4030, ZTZ96s, etc.
XM-1 is so far removed from 11.7 now that it doesn’t even face the old 9.7s and 10.0 tanks as those are all 10.7 and higher.
11.7 is decompressed as per Webster definitions and all evidence supplied.
It is an active lie to claim it’s compressed when all evidence shows decompression.
Leopard 2A7 has the same exact turret armor and marginally more hull front armor for longer range maps.
Thermal generation doesn’t impact BR unless you’re American.
Leopard 2PL is an amazing 11.7 firing a round equivalent to 3BM60 while being similarly armored as T-80B/BVM.
Ariete AMV fires the same round, is faster to reload, and more mobile; its only serious drawback is when you get hit from a shot.
All you keep proving is how decompressed 11.7 is.
Challenger 2s are indeed 11.7 instead of 12.0, more evidence of decompression.
Is this some sort of joke?
0.3 BRs between tanks with vastly different capabilities is “decompression” to you!?
0.3 BRs which, functionally, are no difference at all because each and every single 11.7 match is fully uptiered into 12.0?
Leopard 2A7 has (…) marginally more hull front armor for longer range maps.
“Marginally”…? MARGINALLY…!? The vulnerable area practically goes down by 50%!
DM43 from L/44 is hardly equivalent to 3BM60. It is MUCH worse, and 3BM60 is on the lower end already.
DM43 can’t penetrate Leclerc’s beak. Can’t penetrate Challenger 2’s hull. Can’t penetrate Type 10’s composite modules. Things DM53, M829A2, and higher end shells CAN pen with ease.
Also, “WHILE BEING SIMILARLY ARMORED AS T-80BVM”!? What is the meaning of this!? Why do I keep falling for this bait?
5 Likes
There is no “webster definition” of War Thunder BR compression, this is your opinion
@SPANISH_AVENGER
0.3 is to showcase differences, that’s why it’s a separate BR.
This is a contradiction to this man’s claim:
Most maps are not long-range maps where 2A7V would be a bit better. Most maps are close quarters where front armor doesn’t do much, or medium range where you can hit turret weakspots still.
Having a better upper front plate while all other weakspots stay the same is still a similarly “weak” tank for the vast majority of situations.
DM43 lolpens Leclerc from 2km. It doesn’t have a beak either, that’s what’s on IS-3 and similar fronts. It has a thin strip which no one aims for because the rest of the front is easily penned.
And of course another post claiming facts are bait, up is down, etc etc.
@ThiccoIai
Here you go buddy:
Neither of those definitions are directly related to War Thunder battle ratings
3 Likes
Armor means EVERYTHING when the difference between two tanks’ pennable surface area exceeds such degrees.
Tank (X) with 33% pennable surface area meets Tank (Y) with 75% pennable surface area.
Even at point-blank; all Tank (X) needs to do is point and click in Tank (Y)'s general direction to destroy it with ease- while Tank (Y) needs to take extra time to aim for one of Tank (X)'s few weakspots.
Yes, Tank (Y) "can just hit Tank (X)'s weakspots… and while it calibrates the aim, Tank (X) just shot carelessly and still sliced through Tank (Y) effortlessly. Tank (X) is in an objective, obious and undeniable advantage.
And would you not agree that there may be a difference or two between Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A7HU? Because those are somehow sitting at the exact same BR.
7 Likes
Why can’t it be an 0.7 difference because of the large jump in capability? The Chally/Ariete being just 0.3 below top tier is compression because they should probably be 0.7 below the current top tier tanks.
And you can’t move the 2A5 down since it’s probably better than all 11.7s (and a maybe even a few 12.0s).
4 Likes
Simply put, we should already have 14.0 for Ground Battles.
1 full extra BR to decompress 11.0-12.0; another extra BR to decompress everything below 11.0; particularly the 5.7-7.7 range.
Ideally, 15.0 would come shortly thereafter, along with 15.0 for air.
5 Likes
And the 8.0-9.0 range too. Air could probably get to 16.0 without causing any issues, because 13.0, and 7.0-10.0 are all fairly compressed.
@SPANISH_AVENGER
Are you still facing T-62M1s and Chieftain Mk10s in Leopard 2A4?
Are you still facing XM-1s in T-72B3 and Challenger 2?
Are you still facing Leopard 2A5+s in AMX-40 and Leopard 2K?
Overall armor means something. New thin strips don’t mean a whole lot, especially on the stronger parts of tanks.
This is why T-80U is better than T-80BVM in protection. The new strip along the UFP of T-80B doesn’t do anything major when the turret’s still the same protection.
If 2A7HU had a better LFP and idler wheel protection, or even the armor of Strv 122A, I’d consider it.
However, with top BR prioritizing mobility and lethality over armor according to Statshark data [which is why people love T-80BVM over T-80U and T-90M], I’d have to see the playerbase intentionally slow down to make mobility less important.
It does not help that according to military trials mobility in War Thunder is heavily over-performing on Abrams, Leopard 2, T-80s, T-90s, etc… pretty much everything that isn’t Leclerc and Type 10 are over-performing by amounts that are minor to major; maybe to account for the lack of regen steering.
@Ion_492
A large jump? Let’s look at on of the the smallest jumps that involves a 0.7 difference: Panther D vs Panther G.
10% more armor on its weakspots, and a significantly faster turret traverse.
The difference between 2A5 and 2A7V: 5% more penetration, and the strongest part of the hull armor increases by 50%. Weakspots stay the same.
Okay let’s talk about Leopard 2A4M/PL vs the 12.0 Leopard 2s using DM53.
The strongest part of the hull increases by up to double.
The cannon breach size drops by half. The overall weakspot area drops by ~20%.
The round penetrates ~10 - 30% less overall which is the difference between penning the ERA protected UFP of a T-80U/T-90A or bouncing.
Whereas the difference for the Panther’s weakspot buff is Jumbo penning or bouncing the only consistent weakspot of the Panther from the front.
Opinion
Opinion
Just because decompression finally mildly improved after many years it doesn’t mean it’s not still predominantly present.
“Thin strips”? Leopard 2A7’s modules effectively reduce the pennable area by 50%- and the previously “stronger” part was 450mm KE, incapable of withstanding any shell at that BR- while it’s 670mm KE with the new armor. The difference is HUGE- goes from glass to immune.
While the armor is worse than Strv 122A’s because of some nonsensical claims by the devs, it’s still functionally the same. 670mm KE or 750mm KE, no shell will penetrate either in most circumstances anyway.
Thing is, as I said earlier; that “strongest part” is glass when naked (450mm KE), and becomes entirely immune with that 50% increase (670mm KE).
2 Likes
If I’m using DM23, DM33, 3BM42, etc I’m not going to fire on the UFP of beak-turreted Leopards to begin with as I’d prioritize ammo, crew, and gun modules as I do with all tanks. I learned this universal tactic from rather decent content creators over 6 years ago now.
Even now with Leopard users bringing less ammo to prevent ammo racks as much as possible, I’m not going to aim for UFP when it’s a higher chance that they only brought 21 rounds of ammo than significantly more.
And on CQC maps that extra UFP armor means nothing anyway where side armor protecting the idler wheel matters most, and overwhelming targets with numbers.
I understand your perspective and I 100% agree with your perspective on my backburner takes; the reason why it’s not my current take is evidence coming out that T-80U over-performs in acceleration by double. Abrams over-performs by an amount. And so forth…
Until players stop using their mobility and until players stop prioritizing small maps to play on because they hold the most flanking routes, our shared take is on my personal back burner.
I DO NOT want to have the mobility take, I dislike it. It’s not my opinion but one others found evidence for and I have to use until a point where it’s no longer the status quo.
so basically better in every way? i think the thing that makes 10.7 feel so bad sometimes isnt the 4 11.7 tanks but the swarm of 11.3 tanks you have to deal with.
6 Likes
I know tank swarms first hand.
In 2020 - 2021 when Abrams players did it, and again more recently where Abrams and Leopard players do it.
T-80BVM players did it a couple times as well.
Tank swarming is THE tactic and I don’t like that it is, and when players stop doing it I get to have a nice breathe.
And instead of claiming there’s compression I’d prefer people acknowledge that many if not most of these tanks are over-performing in acceleration and mobility, and push for a more realistic implementation; adding regen steering for tanks that have it alongside that realistic implementation would be nice as well to account for the drastic nerf many of these tanks would get [T-80U accelerating half as quickly would be quite the nerf, and others could be just as drastic].