It’s not. Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right. It makes your argument look worse. Upper plating / lower playing with these rounds can often be eaten by the engine.
It’s very flat, small, quiet, has exceptional pen, it has great gun depression and survivability for a light tank.
No the Shturm isn’t all the OP, but it doesn’t need to be the same br as the It-1, if you move any tank up in br, they’ll get better rewards.
If I also couldn’t find viable Russian nerfs, people would say I’m biased. You also did that very thing, as you already pulled my stat card to see what I mained.
The T30 has excellent pen, and excellent HE filler leading to easy over pressures. It’s a 6.7, and if reload was the sole defining characteristic as you say, then that only aids my point with the IS3-6s. Combine that with the all around worse attributes.
The T26e5, T34, T30, and T29 all are hold W for a win tanks. These have very wonky volumetric armor, especially the machine gun port.
The gun breech is also the same way, often shot trapping. It’s possible to score a kill, but unlikely.
You’d be better off at hurting the flat piece of the turret face just behind the gun mantle.
No I don’t, but commonly I see the tanks I have mentioned doing well, doing well. And the ones doing poorly, doing poorly.
Yes the Soviet 100mm is the only reliable use against those tanks or the German 128
With the APHE changes, even if you fire into the transmission your ammo’s nose should still penetrate like solid shot and kill the crew. It’s not that good of a tank. Tier for tier the M41A1 (before gaijin turned the tank into a M41) is better. Even if you can’t hit his turret ring or MG tumors, APHE to his upper plate will reliably now one-shot unless you are using the most anemic ammo at the tier. The advantage of the T92 is being small and fast. It shares the exact same engine sound with the M41A1 too. Their volume is identical. It’s not a T-80 with a stealth gas turbine.
Now where did I do that? You wanna point it out?
The T30 isn’t that good. It’s the ammo of an M109 in an armored turret, with a minimum
30 second reload as compensation. IS-3 can shoot more than twice for every one T30 shot. IS-6 can hit three shots per T30 shot. Both of them are faster and have trollier hull and turret armor. A slow reload is relative, and only the FV4005/Sturmtiger have reload rates slower than the T30. IS-3 and IS-6 fire much faster in comparison.
Hold W to win and immediately get punished for exposing side armor /weak hull armor. Or shoot once, bounce/kill/disable once and die to his friend. That’s literally every heavy tank in a good matchup. KV-1 Zis is guilty of that. IS-1 is guilty. Tiger 2 is guilty of that.
T29 and her sisters are easily destroyed if they overpush, the tanks are sluggish and have slow turret traverse with bad hull armor and punishable reload times (especially true for the T30.)
Wumbo Pershing is a meme because it pretends to be a trash medium and then it bounces your ammo. It’s just a Super Pershing with a tankier hull in exchange for worse firepower. You can non-penetration overpressure it frontally with the 122mm gun and 128mm gun. The 88mm gun can penetrate the mantlet frontally. Only the anemic 85mm gun has to resort to APCR or side armor shots to hurt it.
And I see the majority of them doing just fine. Playing them lets me see not all is sunshine and rainbows and each vehicle has their own specific strengths and weaknesses that make them fine at their current BR.
You seem to take any dissent with your opinions as non-constructive. He gave entirely reasonable and thought out justifications on why he thought those changes were wrong, which is by definition constructive.
It’s also not his job to justify refusals. You’re the one making the claim, you have to give evidence as to why they should. It’s totally reasonable for someone to look at the 1-2 sentence justification for each change and think that it’s not enough justification to move it up. Hence, it’s “needless”.
This is a very funny thing to write at the start of a comment which flatly dismisses 39 seperate arguments and provides justifications for exactly 1 of them.
The cyclogram test states 6.0 secs reload for the T80U and newer,
(From both primary and secondary sources) considering the recent USA buffs with super speedy reloads, Russia has the slowest reloads at top tier. doesn’t seem rightfully fair.
And yes, the abrams has a far quicker reload in game, than irl.
And then imagine how you’d feel when a squad of Type 10/TKX are allowed to roll around with their WAR capacity reload, completely invalidates the 0.5 decrease in BVM reload
Firstly, I have played most of them. Secondly, it’s a “begging the question” fallacy to assume the justifications are self evident, since in order for them to be self evident the premise must already be true.
It’s entirely possible for someone to look at your justification for, say, the Tiger II 105 (“devastatingly good gun”), and decide that either A) It’s not true (Most would consider it a sidegrade from the long 88), or that B) It is true, but is insufficent reason to move it up.
That thread literally went and provided effective word of god on M1A1/A2 reload rates being fine and accurate to reality. Someone who can’t load the gun in 6s or less will end up getting trained to be a different crew member or get familiar with a different vehicle.
The tanks that should be complaining about everyone being handed 5s reloads are the Leclerc, Type 10 and Type 90 drivers. Their advantage has been a fast reload rate and these buffs directly eat into their advantage.
Cyclograms from primary sources give a variable reload time for soviet autoloaders and 6.5s is on the faster side of average. Again, if you demand faster reload rates for soviet autoloaders then the door is unlocked for multiple other high performance autoloaders to receive significantly faster loading times. Type 10 and Strv 103 being the two biggest winners in that area. Do you really want to fight a NATO style MBT that can dispense their entire autoloader in less than 40 seconds? Or fight a cheese wedge with a 105mm machine gun that fires every ~2.5 seconds, giving you basically zero reaction time to even start moving your tank to counter fire.
These are post trainee videos, watch the ones I have posted.
Read the posts before this too.
The “average” reload is above 6.0 secs. Ace crews shouldn’t be better than what I said previously.
In absolutely ideal conditions you may have a quicker reload. But in game, the tankers wear all but NBC gear. Nor is tank movement accounted for, in manual loaders, or fatigue.
The fastest data I saw for the T-80s was 5.5 seconds, 6.5 being the slowest. 6.0 is the actual and, the average, and what it is set to in production.
Therefore, it should be 6.0 secs.
They have no NATO nobility in reverse to get out of situations, and often cannot take a hit since weakpoints are easy hits in WT.
Then BR Placement would be considered for the faster firing tanks.
The cherry picking of what is and isn’t allowed, is annoying. Considering 90% of the nerfs are against Russia. It has turned me off of playing Russia anymore. I played USA and Italy all day. Yes I’d rather play Italy, and get the Leo-2a7V(HU) and have a good and fun time. Not a struggle to do anything.
It’s not M1 abrams with M774 and gen1 thermals and no armor bad… its not leo 2a4 with just dm23 bad, its not ariete bad… you are not considering even a TINY BIT what is actually at 10.7 when you suggest this change
But to say it needs to go up to 7.3, while the IS-3 heads down to 7.0 is having a laugh. Yeah, the mobility is improved, yes the gun is great. But you’re still a KT, you still have that 1-shot delete button that is your turret cheeks. IS-3 may need much longer to reload, but he won’t mind because his hit on you is going to lead to your demise if you don’t take out the IS3 first. As you can see from my winrate in it, the Germans are not having the greatest time when coming up against the USA/Soviets in the 7.0/7.3 area, as it is.
I’ll tell you one thing - you send KT 10.5 to 7.3 and you’ve essentially killed it off, because at that point, you’re better off just running the Maus with the 7.7 line-up.
let me clear, if you insist that you think the T-90A = the very first M1 I will from here on assume you are either trolling or have no idea what you’re talking about to the point I will disregard you as a default. That is how insane your current opinion is. Abort and reevaluate is my suggestion.
At the very least, comprehend that decompression is the way out of these balance issues rather than making the T-90A massively undertiered.
Fox at 8.0 is wild…Thats DF015.Marder territory. Not stabilised, no thermals no commander overide and it’s wheeled with an incredibly loud engine. If you die to the Fox it’s on you.
Conqueror has an 18 second reload with one of the worst performing rounds 120mm APDS sounds great but it’s 1st generation and it shatters or over penetrates a lot of the time.
