M1000A1 is over 50% stronger than 3BM25, not to mention the significantly better spalling.
Mobility is practically identical, only a ~3% increase in hp/t.
Armor is obviously better on the T-55AM-1 but T-55M has substantially better firepower. And the composite only protects against HEAT-FS. Again, it’s a trade off.
3BM25: ~260mm LOS pen at 60 degrees
XM885: ~320mm LOS pen at 60 degrees
Of course XM885 has lower projectile mass, but also has a better penetrator leading to more spall.
I’m comparing M1000A1 and 3BM25 to similar performing APFSDS rounds to give you an idea of the difference in performance.
The turret armor on then T55 AM-1 is not just for heat, it can stop apds and other rounds (most apfsds will go through at 8.7 and above) which would normally go through the turret additionally it can be volumetric esq at times but thats besides the point. Even 3BM25 cant pen the add on turret armor which kinda is a big deal when it comes to needing to aim to take it out. The T55M doesn’t have that. Additionally the composite on the front hull will stop 3BM25 again, it makes no sense why they are the same BR.
Additionally mass effects spall the most of which the difference between both T55’s is .35 so where is your idea of significantly better spalling? The difference is so miniscule it has no real effect. If it was DM 23 with its 4.2 kg mass then yes id agree the spalling matter but it doesnt. The fact is its main selling point is having 60° angle pen which again isnt worth a BR on par with a vehicle that is better all around than itself.
I don’t think there is anything better than M42 Contraereo, which is imo pretty good.
Hungarian Nimrod can come, but it will probably be at lower br (depending on the implementation, for example if they add ability to use HEAT grenades or not) and it’s more of a TD than AA gamewise anyway.
I can only think of more Shermans, Italian M4A4 (though some said that it’s M4) equipped with 76 mm cannon can be at 4.7 due to having worse armor than M4A1 (76) W (this one can be also c&p into Italian TT)
Maybe one of M113 AA variants can be placed at this BR, and/or we can get Hungarian Csepel truck with 23-2. R3 won’t go down lower than it’s now, that’s for sure.
There can come some stuff around this br equipped with SS.11 atgms and/or autocannons. Plus regular 90 mm M47 can come. Another option would be to uptier M26A1 by giving it T108 HEAT shell, but then we will lose 6.7 tank. Oh and Hungarian T-54 can be an option.
Not sure, but maybe with certain shells selection M113 25/80 can be placed at such br.
Unfinished prototype, but would be cool if it comes.
Maybe, if there is a single truck equipped with launchers and radar station, though doubt they will add it, at least any time soon.
Yes, would be a nice addition to top tier line up.
TL;DR - I strongly dislike the idea of having to replay vehicles I’ve already researched and spaded in order to experience the unique vehicles a new nation has to offer. If Gaijin would add new tech trees but give me access to vehicles I’ve alreayd researched and spaded (within the new tech tree) I would be all for expanding the smaller tech trees in the newer nations. Right now, I see a bunch of interesting vehicles, stuck behind what appears to me to be a boring time sink of playing duplicate vehicles with lower levelled crews, and having to spend SL from a single pool of credits to pay for the tanks and upgrades.
I’m of two minds, one the one hand I’d like to see the other nations fleshed out as more vehicles is always fun. The opposite side of the coin acknowledges the issues with expanding or adding other tech trees.
The game is developed around nations having a very robust list of well documented combat vehicles. Right now smaller nations can only function due to that nation being able to supplement their tech tree with export models from major powers. This in itself is not an issue, however players time and research points are being spread exceptionally thin, especially when it comes to completing tech trees, developing crew skills and the research points required to unlock and spade duplicate vehicles.
I’m a big fan of the inclusion of many Israeli vehicles for personal reasons however I am resisting the research and grinding of several M48s M60s and Centurions as I feel they have little to offer in comparison to the same vehicles I have already researched and spaded in the existing US and UK tech trees. This is less of an issue for newer players as these smaller tech trees with export vehicles supplementing the lineup offer a great introduction into a variety of vehicle styles.
I think a simple fix would be to only require the research of truly unique vehicles, for example; if I am researching the M4A4 sherman, the M10 GMC, the M48, I would like to think I’d then have that vehicle in every tech tree it’s available in.
from my perspective of already having researched the majority of vehicles in the major powers, the idea of researching tech trees largely comprised of vehicles I have already played a considerable number of battles is in unappealing. I would much rather that tech trees like Israel, existing in sub categories of US, (Shermans, Pattons and M109) UK (Centurions and Merkava) and USSR (T-54 and T-62) for example. A similar case could be made for Swedish vehicles existing largely in the British tech tree, with earlier derivatives of ** LT vz. 38** being in the german tech tree, and later versions of the leopard and leopard 2 being german.
I had some similar idea, even suggested it on the Russian forum, when after researching the vehicle in one TT, you can also buy the same vehicle in other nations TTs, although you still need to research previous vehicles in the line.
Imo it would be way more interesting and useful than their proposed bonuses for reasearched nations.
What I think would be interesting and offer Gaijin far more opportunities for monetisation would be to have a separate global tech tree, which lives behind the nation tech tree.
Lets use the M10 GMC tank destroyer at 3.3 for instance. Lets say that this is one tank that lives in the global tech tree sits in a hierarchy above the nation tech trees. You only actually have the one M10 GMC, as a player you only have the one vehicle in your account, but each tech tree then references the vehicle and applies modifiers to it when you play it the either the US, French or Chinese tech tree. All the points scored (kills, captures, assists etc) are stored in the base vehicle, all research points are stored in the one vehicle (RP towards spading the vehicle) and the only progress that would need to be tracked on the National level of the tech tree would be RP earned against nation specific vehicles, and nation specific camouflage and decals.
So lets say you have the M10 GMC, you can use it in three tech trees regardless of progress in those tech trees.
I’m at the stage in my War Thunder experience where RP counted towards the ‘ACE’ qualification is really important to me. I’m aware that I’m optimising the fun out of some of the experience by trying to do everything with maximised efficiency.
Okay, that’s fair, I could have sworn the composite used to be a lot worse and didn’t really stop APDS. But still, the armor is a trade off for the better round.
3BM25 is an old style steel penetrator, M1000A1 uses tungsten which spalls much better. Look at the animation that plays when viewing the rounds, you can see for 3BM25 it looks different from M1000A1.
If T-55M only had 3BM25, then a lower BR would be justified. But as it stands, it’s a trade off with the T-55AM1 and isn’t all around worse than it.
It can’t go down because at 8.3 is the T-55A which doesn’t have a laser rangefinder and has only 3BM25.
Again you ignored the mobility while having the better armor. Additionally i recommend you do testing in game and not by looking at stat cards. Both vehicles will kill each other if they dont hit the fuel tank. They spall nearly the same if you test it with a friend. Outside of hitting the fuel they do the same if not nearly identical spall patterns. Additionally while the T55M has to aim closer to the breach or for the driver as to get a shot that wont be eaten by the add on turret armor or the fuel tank the T55 AM-1 can aim only needing to avoid the fuel tank. Again i wont deny that they are good tanks but the T55 AM-1 is just a better vehicle all all-round than that of a T55A with a better round.
Now gaijin could add the T55M mexas at 8.7 or the early era model. I guess having the same armor and a better round means it should be the same BR as the T72’s
The apfsds is actually underperforming as irl the reason the fins stuck with the T55’s were because the Swedish FCS and belgian ammo made the tanks win in mock battles against the T72’s.
I am not trying to state that the T55M is bad, far from it, but i am showing all perks of both vehicles of which i compare the ammo and both have similar spall when tested. Thus the spall argument goes back to when i stated that if the round was 4.2 kg then we would see a realistic difference in spall of which we dont as .35 doesnt add much, maybe 2-3 additional bits of shrapnel but the difference in negligible. Again we have better armor and mobility, for slightly better pen at 60°. Not much of a difference.
Additionally the leo A1A1 is 9.0 with no armor and no LRF so again the T55 AM-1 can be 9.0, the real problem is compression. The tradeoffs between the AM-1 and M are too different to be fair. If the M had the upgraded engine then the difference would be fair. Better round and mobility for worse armor. Better real armor for slightly worse pen. Of which i could just use a missile (though very few people do that.)
No, you ignored the fact that the “better mobility” of the T-55AM-1 is in fact negligible due to the increased weight.
Im using stats to show the… stats of the vehicle. To compare them.
Leopard A1A1 is too much better than T-55AM-1, if Leopard A1A1 fired 3BM25 then sure but it doesn’t.
Again, the upgraded engine is offset by the additional 5 tons of weight, consequently the hp/t ratio goes up only ~3% between the T-55M and the T-55AM-1.
M1000A1 is a tungsten penetrator, 3BM25 uses a steel penetrator. Tungsten rounds are modeled in game to spall more than steel.
~400mm LOS at 60 is not just slightly better than ~260mm LOS at 60. How many opponents are you fighting with completely flat, unangled armor like a Tiger I? Superior 60 degree pen means superior performance at 8.7 and above.
The Ikv 103 is rather universally regarded as meh at best, and the Bkan, while powerful, is a fair BR or two above its competitors, has limited traverse, and has a godawful sight. The SAV is its own thing.
It doesn’t have enough ammo and lacks speed imo. If it had good armor then it would be better, but it’s just slow and doesn’t really have the penetration to back that up.
Something like that would be nice, since there aren’t enough vehicles at the BR for a full line-up.
Idk why people think it shouldn’t go down, it’s not amazing or anything.
The Grifo/Land Ceptor system has IR and EO tracking on the truck itself iirc.
R3 really shouldn’t go up, it would just turn into a worse version of the Weasel if that happened (and there’d be no real reason to play the R3 at that point).
It’d also create a huge SPAA gap from 3.7 to 7.3/7 (with the ZSU-57-2 and Leo 40/70 not really counting as SPAA) that the Csepel truck wouldn’t fix that as we can already see with the Bosvark. As for AA M113s, the best I’ve seen that Italy actually used (that wouldn’t just be the SIDAM 25) is the VCC-2 which has a single 0.50 cal.
