Oh, I meant your thunders kill ss shows the tiger 105 having a better KDR than the object 279
Well. The Tiger II 105 faces many things that can’t kill it.
Vs.
The obj 279 has a lot of things that can kill it, people just tend to shoot at it very poorly.
exactly and i’m telling you that using Challenger 2 against Russian in CQC are no fun even at range hull down a size of gun breach are also make it equal bad as it CQC pretty much you can shoot Challenger 2 anywhere that not turret cheek
Foward speed is very fast some even faster than Leclerc (Leopard is not the fastest western tank)
that trade by you get fix reload around 7.1 to 6.5 without training crew or spend or million SL to get it faster
this is the only thing i can’t blame anyone but Engineer and no one can do anything about it even God above and below can’t do anything about it what can be done? put 30km/h to them that they don’t have irl? (that open the door for more BS)
not only apply for Russian tanks
That exactly the problem every nation facing right game embrace stupid CQC that make most tanks in the game can’t be use more effectively since the game embrance CQC that left only two tanks that able to beat the sht out of each other
Uparmored Leopard
Russain tanks
try use other tanks against one of these heh good luck
1 Like
My ping is 200, so my reload is going to be 6.7s playing against players that living next to the server.
Feeling sad.jpg
1 Like
I understand the challys aren’t great for cqc, and suffer some problems the Russians do, like the irl reverse gear. (No I don’t think there is a fox to that, that’s also why I said mbts are better at range).
Crew skills for Russian tank do still take effect, but the auto loader should be given its realistic reload, give the fantasy loads of nato (especially abrams tanks). The HSTVL just got a historical buff, but the T-80U (and newer) didn’t get one, and it’s been incorrect for longer.
The T-90 reload / T-72 is already correct.
And in cqc at least the chally can reverse.
I’d rather an expert crew be able to reload quicker. It’s insane how good the abrams is with an expert loader. In a game when fire rate > penetration means everything, you need the fire rate. That’s why so many Fuji’s are all over, they can shoot as much as they need to.
In terms of cqc, the Germans and swedens have the best benefit, followed by USA, as the abrams is so fast you can rush a corner where a poor enemy shot may only take your engine / driver.
The Russian tanks often get hit in the LFP or drivers port and are immediately blown up. (The LFP and drivers port irl are far harder to score a killing single hit blow as the T tanks are all very small compared to nato tanks).
So I would say the Russian tanks are the low end of average when it comes to their abilities.
If T-14 Armata came for Russia, then they could have a 12.3 tank in the form of the T-14
The most benefit against Russia in CQC same goes as Russian that most benefit at CQC against them
because nobody can go crash into each other in CQC like both of them can
and I’m not gonna go CQC againt both in Challenger 2 there is no ways i can win against either Russian or Uparmored Leopard
It is weak spot everyone gonna aim that spot for obvious reason like but compare to other that not Uparmored Leopard it still small same go for Uparmored Leopard everyone will aim under their gun or LFP for obvious reasons
it better that ways than go against uparmored Leopard when your entire hull is green
not when Challenger 2 still exists as Brits only choice
Forget about it that
EMBT or KF-51 level and it gonna end the same as it is now
Only German and Russian can only go against each other while other got left behind.
1 Like
The T-14 is far more developed than the KF51, but that’s another topic.
Back to br changes.
Brother, why are you torturing yourself with these issues
Gaijin has mathematical stats of it’s entire player base
You have your opinion
What do you think is more relevant?
2 Likes
Mathematics they use can be skewed by low level bad players, such as T-29 users.
Why bother with it? Well, I’m sick of 99% of my games being full uptiers, as all the premiums lock in certain brs, but it’s also for over all balance.
Gaijin does see these posts once in awhile.
Most are logical moves
T-80UD, T-72AV, 2S38, BMD-4M, surprise it’s russian.
What?
You need to aim better. It always dies in one hit for me.
They’re fine where they are. Especially the T30, it’s very easily killed. All the T34-alikes have long reloads and are countered by anyone with HEATFS or a good angle on their left turret ammo rack.
It’s fine at 7.0 BR.
It’s fine where it is.
You’re hitting it with a sledgehammer when it’s fine at 6.7. This seems like a personal vendetta.
They’re both fine where they sit, the only change is to remove the uprated engine from the Tiger 2 105.
It’s fine where it sits. There are better vehicles at 8.0 in the same niche.
This one also seems personal. If you’re going to throw it up to 9.0 then you have to give it F-APDS ammo to compensate. Full F-APDS belts, as those completely replaced DM13 and DM11 mixed belts for anti-aircraft work (according to the gepard enthusiasts I have spoken to).
It’s fine where it is. If you want it higher, then have the multiple missing features and later TOW models added.
It’s fine where it is. 6.0 tanks (IE: Black Prince) have literally no chance.
Like the T32E1 to base T32 it’s fine where it sits. It’s comparable to IS-3 but with better armor, and a faster reload.
All of them are fine where they sit. The armor and speed for T-54 variants is oppressive for 6.7 BR tanks. Shturm-S trades survivability and protection for thermals, different missiles and a low profile. IT-1 is a different niche.
They are fine where they are. Sprut has a good gun but isn’t particularly fast or small. T-72B(89) is the one that should go up, as it has outright better armor and the same BR as T-72B.
It’s perfectly fine where it is.
Gaijin has said multiple times this reload is both accurate and balanced. They have primary source cyclograms of the fastest practical rate of fire for the automatic loading system. If you start messing with this, then Type 10 gets a 1 second reload, Strv 103 gets 2.5s reload, and more carefully balanced vehicles get changed without need.
Then give it the prototype 30x170 APFSDS developed for the gun.
Unnecessary changes and wrong descriptions of the vehicles you want changed. Type 61 is manually loaded. STA-3 is autoloaded and for 6.7 BR is fine. The autoloader is just a different feature of a functionally identical tank to the Type 61. Both aren’t fast, small or competitive in 8.0 BR games.
The armor on both these isn’t as good as you claim. Type 60 resists 7.62 AP but is easily destroyed by .50 AP or API-c (as I expect you are more used to, from the 12.7 DShk).
Ho-Ri prototype has about average protection for a 6.7 heavy TD. Ferdinand is similar, jtiger is a lot better, Obj 268 is better, Su-122-54 is a little worse.
Then it gets modern thermals. The only reason it gets gen 1 is because of the old CN consultant trying to screw with things.
M163 is worse because it has much worse range. Shilka has bad dispersion, Gepard is only better due to APDS belts and range. Move outliers up instead of average performers down.
These seem personally motivated. The Aubl 74 HVG turret is very cramped, and the HVG ammo is decently cumbersome for the space given. These aren’t 40mm bofors rounds. Comparable ammo in mass and dimension are soviet 76.2mm F-32 APCR rounds. Even there, the smallest turret the F-32 was fitted in has more internal volume compared to the HVG turret.
M300 getting buffed means 75mm XM884 also gets buffed. And the 76.2mm APFSDS on OTOmatic/Rooikat. M41(CN) with APFSDS also gets buffed.
Char 25t is also afflicted by the same issues. Both deserve the change if you change one.
It trades a stabilizer, survivability and protection for an autoloader. It’s fine at 5.0 next to the US 76mm Shermans.
Just replace it with the T-55 Marksman. A modern MBT hull at this BR is obscene even if only allowed to use a 20mm firing APFSDS.
These are the suggestions I disagree with the most, but most of them are unnecessary. What needs to happen is decompression.
5 Likes
I thought of a suggestion.
Turm III…from 8.3 to 8.7 or 9.0 that thing is stupidly powerful
1 Like
Many of your counter arguments are just “no” make something a bit more valid.
Also, the T92 can eat 105mm shells as well as 122mms and only receive damage to the engine and transmission, but thanks for saying “skill issue”
Your not constructive in the slightest, and go figure, all the similar characters liked your post, as isn’t a surprise.
As you are leaving egregiously OP tanks where they are, and not buffing tanks that are preforming badly.
Although I agree. I think 8.7 is the first logical step for it.
So can the AMX-13 or BMPs, but you don’t see anyone calling those OP.
Their arguments also aren’t wrong.
2 Likes
The bmps and amxs both taller, and louder.
And unless your talking about the sweden one, the T92 is the only one of these that has HEAT FS at 7.0
I provided pretty good reasons why these tanks should be moved.
Efficiency included
T29, T30 and T34 are one of the hardest things to kill in a hull down position, even the long 88mm couldn’t go through it in most angles, only the 128mm PaK44 from Jagdtiger or Maus has a slightly easier time, HEATFS pens everything in that br so it’s not the T29’s specific weakness, even the side of the turret when angled slightly will bounce the soviet 100mm, most of the time I camped hull down I can only be killed by CAS.
2 Likes
It is a skill issue. I don’t have problems with reversing IS tanks or Merkavas, with guns weaker than the 122mm gun for their BR. T92 has terrible protection if you have decent aim. Stop shooting his lower plate with HE or whatever.
Egregiously OP tanks such as the Shturm and T30, with obvious weaknesses and deficiencies a good player can take advantage of in order to counter them. Yeah, sure.
The IS-3, IS-6, and the like are definitely not bad. They’re average performers and balanced at their tier. You buff them unnecessarily and they become I-win-by-rolling-face-on-keyboard tanks.
You don’t have access to gaijin’s internal “efficiency” statistic either, so you can’t claim that’s a valid argument for anything here. The best you have is thunderskill and the like, which are skewed samples. Bad statistics are worse than no statistics.
That is by intention and their strongest ability. IS-3, IS-6, King Tiger, etc all have stronger hull armor so they don’t need to use terrain to hide their hull all the time. If you find a T29 or one of her sisters hull down, shoot center mass and you should kill her gun or gun breech through the 203mm mantlet exterior. High powered guns like the 128mm have a decent chance of taking the turret crew out through the mantlet too. 100mm Soviet has good enough performance to reliably kill the gun or breech frontally. And beyond a 20 degree angle off the direct front of the turret, the sides become weak enough for it to be penetrated by that same gun.
We usually won’t find IS-3 and IS-6 enter those areas and still find themselves useful because they will have trouble lowering their weapon should they hit a slight bumpy surface, outside of cities with flat surfaces the IS-series has features that disadvantage them. Also we need to take sight zoom into account when it comes to hitting the weak spots of a hull down T29, IS-3 and IS-6 have one of the worst zoom in that respective br, any further than 700m is pixel hunt, which increases the aim time and affects shot accuracy. For zoom factor only the IS-4M and T-10A can match the T29 in that area.
One forced to brawl in order to be useful, another one can choose not to brawl head-on if the maps weren’t advance to the rhine or sun city lol it will make more sense if we br vehicles base on map type
1 Like