I mostly agree with all of these but there are the us tanks which should not be moved up in br… they are fine where they are… same goes for german tiger 2s…
Along with that the gepard is fine where it is… It is an anti air and not a anti tank having only guns at that br is no use as an anti air… also poor armour… 1 bmp2 is all it takes to down it.
Also… BMP3 9.3>10.3 If begleitpanzer is going up… This thing should too… especially with good thermals, fire rate and capability to fire on the move…
TAM 2C 10.3>10.0 Either lower br or a better reload rate like 5s aced… cuz no armour ok mobility ok round while being same br as boxer mgs and cv90105 , both of which have 5s reload autoloaders…
So. Just putting this out there, the ZSU-57-2 is a good anti tank right? For lighter mediums and light tanks etc. while being a terrible aa.
The Gepard has the same or better mobility than pretty much every tank it sees. Better fire rate, godly APHE.
Not to mention an APDS belt, that will kill every heavy but the Maus from the side.
It is also, by far the best aa at its br. The radar is so accuracy is way too good, I lock a plane and it’s dead in a second or two.
Take the Sidam, zsu-23-4 or something similar and they don’t even compete. (This just reminded me to take a look at the Type 87).
Why the Beglit should go up, and perhaps a minute bump in br for the bmp?
Simple. BMP-3 doesn’t have proxy fuse, and the atgm reloads faster on the Beglit, while having better angled armor, better speed, and a higher damage gun, with higher penetration. (It may be just me, but I feel like the Beglit it far quieter than most tanks as well).
The BMP-3 doesn’t have irst lock, which means you need to manually aim to take down aircraft, which isn’t super terrible, but proxy fuse makes it a cake walk.
The main cannon can fire ATGMs, but has a very long load time, making you rely on your 30mm cannon with roughly the same fire rate as the Beglit.
Both have an LRF, the real gimmick is the floatation ability of the bmp-3 and the HE on the 100mm, it’s purely good up close, terrible otherwise. It only flys at I think 300 m/s.
Which, gaijin still hasn’t fixed the ranging issue for the HE on the Bmp-3, bmd-4 or bmd-4m. If you range with HE it flys like another 10 feet lol.
In terms of cqc, the Germans and swedens have the best benefit
Germans by far have the worst CQC of the big three nations (and I believe also compared to several minors, but that’s based on intuition so I’ll factor that less) starting with the Pz 4s and Stug IIIs and lasting all the way up until possibly top-tier (I can’t comment on top-tier, since I’m not there, but at least from what I’ve seen the trend continues that Germany is a sniping country).
Look at the design choices of any German tank. Their armour is always designed to protect at long ranges, their guns are always designed to penetrate at long ranges (which is the bulk of why so many low-mid tier German guns overperform for their BRs), and they are consistently less agile (which is to say turning around and accelerating) than their contemporaries.
On the other side of the spectrum, Russian tanks are by far the best in CQC. They have fast reloads, move quickly, they tend to have relatively low penetration and low-zoom optics (because they’re meant for close ranges), and they’re also very agile (with only occasional exceptions). Nearly every aspect of at least 70% of Russian tanks is designed for close quarters, and they very easily benefit the most of all countries from the CQC maps common in War Thunder.
As to the reload speeds, to my knowledge most tanks in War Thunder reload less quickly than in real life (with some exceptions). The fast reloads present in certain NATO tanks are usually representing when the loader is trying to load particularly quickly, and the slower reloads represent more sustained fire. Arguably, the faster ROF makes more sense in War Thunder due to the CQC maps, but which reload speed is used largely depends on balance, and the faster ones are not unrealistic.
Personally, I prefer that most tanks have relatively slow reloads as is the case now, because that gameplay feels better to me, but there’s a definite argument for making reloads faster across the board (though it certainly wouldn’t suit my poor reaction time).
It depends somewhat on the tier, but for the most part the statement is accurate. I did try to include exceptions and qualifiers to my statement, but take it mostly as a “in general: this”. The Leopard 1 is also a very good example of a German tank designed explicitly for sniping.
I will say (and I admit this is the very definition of nitpicking, I’m saying it only as a minor way of griping) that the Leopard 1 is not the best example of something that would beat the T-54. It is unstabilized and has no armour; there are many other tanks at the same BR which perform far better. I think the T-54 might also have APHE, which I’d kill for in the Leopard 1 and which definitely gives some from of advantage in CQC (correct me and void my statement if I’m wrong on that though, I haven’t checked recently).
Apologies for the poor writing of this response, I am very tired, and will be promptly reheating some food and going to bed soon.
It will still easily clap T-54 in the CQC as it has better mobility both forwards and backwards, better gun handling and reload speed. It will also lolpen with the best 105mm APDS in the game.
Nope nope nope. Tiger 2 at 7.0BR is just cursed and would ruin Germanys whole 6.7 Line Up which is already just constant +1 Uptiers always facing 7.3/.7.7 US and USSR Vehicles all the time
All the 6.7 Vehicles should remain at 6.7 imho. It might not sound much to move them up by only 0.3 but thats a huge jump in Tech/Armour etc at 7BR and then going to encounter 8 / 8.3 Vehicles some of which already get Thermals, LRF and APFSDS, ATGMs…and then you might end up running into Helis and way stronger Planes too…
Your point being? And at 7.0 / 7.3 those former 6.7 are going to run into 8.0 / 8.3 Vehicles, some having Thermals, LRF, APFSDS, ATGMs, Helis, stronger Planes…thats a massive jump
Not to forget it would make them guaranteed to constantly just encounter further advanced Cold War Vehicles and even early 2000s Vehicles like the VIDAR nullifying all their strengths and completely outperforming them unless you manage to get an Downtier
There are multiple vehicles that have one or multiple of those traits. I’m not certain if there’s a vehicle that has all, but Dadadudu was fairly obviously not saying the 6.7s would be facing a vehicle that has all of these, but that 6.7s facing vehicles with even some of these is too much.
If you put every nation on a scale of CQC vs Sniping, where does Russia come out?
The only country that might be more CQC based than Russia is the US, and considering Russia’s apparent aversion to long-range weapons and equipment and habit of designing tanks on the concept of “we don’t need good optics if we drive closer”, I have some doubts on that.
Funnily enough, I found out recently, the Maus cam Bounce rounds from a T-72A
Can does not mean will, much like your imagined point that “the Marder can bounce APFSDS”.
The IS-6 can face 8.7s… so can the IS-4M
The difference is that, because these are heavy tanks with incredibly good armour, downtiering them will put them against many tanks that are wholly incapable of killing them. While them being uptiered in the manner described is far from ideal, it is also far preferable to sending them against such pathetically weaker opponents (which is the same logic on which the Maus is balanced, despite its numerous disadvantages when in any kind of uptier).
Next time it happens, I will record it and send it to you.
I played the is-6 earlier to test how bad it was, I was surprised.
I got 8 kills.
7 were press W USA mains uptiering lower br tanks for no reason.
1 was a USA f80 or something that flew in the straightest line I’ve seen. Pilot sniper him.
At 400 meters I somehow bounced off the side of the T29’s turret on a good angle too.
Guess what killed me? An M41a1 (side shot) and a T26e1 at a super high AoA on the gunner optic.