Gaijin please, you don’t even need to make the ATGMS better or make it shoot ATGMS on the move just please bring the old horizontal drive and bigger ammo belt and if you do, you can even bring it up to 9.7, I don’t care, just why can minor nations have anything good gaijin, I’m begging here.
In all seriousness, I don’t think the type 89 isn’t terrible it’s good but, I don’t see why Gaijin can’t just remove some of the nerfs and move it up to 9.7, I feel like most people that even play 9.0 Japan just play 9.3 or 9.7 anyway, I just don’t see any objection from players I guess, for now.
All mouse guided missiles where ‘nerfed’ based on a science the developers pulled out from somewhere and the changes were never welcome, but in fact, the Type 89’s Type 79 and Type 79 ASM are not the best in terms of guidance, which returning to the original post, does not make the Type 89 any worse, but the opposite, it’s a great vehicle and by far the best infantry fighting vehicle in all branches, the 35 mm Oerlikon KDE deals so much damage and in my experience, the few times I used the ATGMs were at point blank when the cannons wasn’t the best option.
Moving it to battle rating 9.7 is just forcing to a little to no existent line-up which in my opinion isn’t worth, keeping it at battle rating 9.0 is one of the few options of actual playable Japanese line-up, my recommendation is using the Type 89 at medium distances, don’t rely on ATGMs for God’s sake, the 35 mm autocannon is more than enough to dealing with most main battle tanks or better armored targets you may face.
I believe HESH was/wasn’t nerfed because of some document telling some gibberish, but, Gaijin’s incompetence to build a shell penetration calculation realistic enough to imitate HESH behaviour, same which how HVAP is unreliable, and HE is overperforming.
Type 89’s missiles are derived from TOW missiles, both of which perform very nicely.
Yes, all SACLOS guided missiles were corrected to stop their over-performing maneuverability. Some were over-corrected and got corrected again to their current states.
Type 79 and Type 79 ASM are coastal defense anti-armor missiles, which are 153 mm, in other hand TOW are 127 mm, this is proof that they’re not based off the TOW.
SACLos missile behaviour changes were not welcome, and War Thunder is far from a realistic game, if the game were in fact realistic, we would have things fixed a long ago, this is just arcade-ish game where tanks are fighting in infantry-sized arenas.
SACLOS changes of March 2023 was just basic physics. Missiles don’t magically stay in the middle of the command line; neither do they fly straight without any oscillation. The previous model lacked inertia.
Regarding the “missile changes were not welcome”, they certainly were not due to the lack of associated balance changes at the time. However, they added a necessary element of realism. The argument that “unrealistic elements on the game make realism unnecessary” is completely illogical.
According to stats the bmp-3 its better, even with a much lower winrate, having much more players and being a main nation played more by “new” players (that will make stats worse) it has higher individual KD.
Its the most played 9.0 of Russia… thats not without a reason.
When I play on the BMD-4M, the Type 89 and Swedish light tanks are my priority targets. For some reason I can’t fathom, my ATGM at medium ranges doesn’t penetrate these vehicles, especially the Swedish ones. When I played the Type 89 in one respawn, I felt it was a great machine. But in a lineup with the Type 90, that feeling is gone. The only thing I don’t like about it is its speed—it feels like it lacks a bit of dynamism.
Why are you bringing player skill into a conversation about vehicles?
I don’t care if BMP-3 players are better than Type 89 players, that’s irrelevant.
Type 89 fires better ammo, is as mobile, has equal ATGM capability with better placement of ATGMs.
The BMP-3’s ATGM is marginally different.
This isn’t 220 vs 275mm APFSDS, it’s 700 vs 750 of HEAT warhead.
That side profile is more versatile than barrel launched.
The BMP-3 has tandem ATGMs with more pen and which effectively ignore ERA, are beam riding so they can’t be jammed by anything, go almost twice as quickly, and can be fired on the move. They also have twice as many. The only downside is the reload.
In terms of placement, they’re instantly in line with the sight so there’s no risk of them overcorrecting and missing at close range, they also don’t slam into walls when you’re poking around a corner. But the worse part is that they have an absolutely glacial 2 degrees a second aced vertical traverse. Meaning if you have to point the gun up to aim at a plane or whatever, you will not be able to use the ATGMs against anything at ground level anytime soon. Even hilly terrain can be an issue.
The difference in capability is huge. If a BMP-3 runs into an MBT headon somewhere, they can just derp fire an ATGM at them and stand a reasonbale chance of winning the fight. If the Type 89 does, it loses if it isn’t already stationary, and the slow missiles and awkward placement make it unreliable anyways.
Yeah, the Type 89’s got better ammo, but the BMP-3’s is still more than enough to side pen everything you see at the BR, with enough fire rate to kill things quickly, and doesn’t have to deal with the crippling ready rack replenishment speed.
Also, mobility isn’t that close. 28 Hp/t on the BMP versus 23 Hp/t on the Type 89. Yeah, the 89’s reverse speed is greater, but 20 kph isn’t slow.
Indeed, I can’t agree more. Regarding War Thunder realism I always had this problematic point of view, and seen how things tend to be going, I don’t think I’ll change it any sooner.
Adding shiny and reflective windows as there is nothing inside as it acts just like a mirror, or perhaps tanks flying in the minor hill they face as it had no mass whatsoever or a small bush cutting your speed in half, adding a realistic change where makes this arcade game nowhere realistic in some way difficult to some is also no logical in my point of view.
War Thunder, at the time had countless realism, physics and logic issues, I believe and far from what I can remember, these missile changes were made based on the community’s complaints regarding their performance, but there’s my problem, if missiles were changed, why not tanks as a whole, suddenly, specially autoloaded tanks can reload without automatically aligning the breech with the autoloading mechanism, I may and surely I’m talking nonsense.
The ATGM may be the only positive point between the BMP-3 and Type 89 comparison. In my opinion Type 89 will outstand BMP-3 just because of the autocannons, the armor, is no different, equally insufficient.
From my experience I had better matches, and could face encounters with more ease against main battle tanks with the Type 89 (2.17 kill/death ratio in 368 total vehicles destroyed out of 169 deaths in ground realistic battles) rather than with the BMP-3 (1.28 kill/death ratio in 372 total vehicles destroyed out of 289 deaths in ground realistic battles).
Despite my stats on this vehicle differ from the next guy which makes my previous point useless to the discussion, because this doesn’t show how good or bad the vehicle actually is, I still belive that the Type 89, even without the ATGMs is better than the BMP-3, as I always recommend, and I’ll, BMP-3 is better as a sniper vehicle and the Type 89 as a brawler, due to the faster rate of fire and better close combats capacity overall.
I have to disagree. The BMP’s far easier to use ATGM and fire on the move capabilities make it far more reliable for me in CQC brawling type scenarios. If I come around the corner and see a Russian, Chinese, British or American MBT in the Type 89, I mostly just die. There are some shots that work, but it’s unreliable. Meanwhile, if I run into any of them in the BMP-3, I can just derp a missile at them and often win the trade outright.
The Type 89 is technically better if you manage to get flank shots on enemies, but again, the BMP-3 isn’t bad here either. You have a higher rate of fire, and the belt feed is much more forgiving for having to spray a bit. You require flatter angles and closer ranges, but it’s not exactly impossible to make it work.
The Type 89 is best playing a bit defensively, utilizing it’s high pen main gun and decent missiles at medium/longish range. It’s quite adept at countering the various wheeled LTs that are common in uptiers. But even here, the BMP-3’s high quality thermals and small hulldown sillohette give it advantages too.
Outside of running into a swarm of Leopards 1s headon, anything the Type 89 can do, the BMP-3 also can, while also being able to do more in other scenarios.
You then complain about skill for some reason.
Then you mention planes for no reason, a red herring.
Then once again complaining about skill.
Mobility is not hp/t. Transmission plays the biggest role in mobility.
