Same situation here lol I already spaded both Abrams Throphy and V3 and somehow the T-90M Arena still 300k rp away, that 100k point is from bvm carrying all that weight alone as I can’t stand playing that ugly ass t-90m. Not only that its ugly its also trash.
bvm is also ugly, but not as ugly as the t-90m imo atleast bvm has all that small silhoulette thing going for it, like I can actually peek the hill then kill something without them having time to react, t-90m just has a sign on top of the turret that says “hey shoot me please”, then inviting spikes and not been able to retreat from them because smoke is only useful if your tank can moved away from last known position lol
Guys, this thread is about whether SEPv3’s hull armor upgrades are properly modelled or not, and how they could be.
Not about whether the Abrams is the best performing tank in the game’s universe, nor about whether it “deserves” to be properly modelled like every other tank or not “b-because it has good stats during its initial release’s flavour of the month phenomenon”.
It’s funny how the War Thunder community always understands and wishes for every tank to be properly depicted ingame… EXCEPT the Abrams. Ah, the Abrams is the only one to be fine and even deserve artificial nerfs “b-because it’s so good it doesn’t matter/it’s balanced”…
That used to be true before this latest major update, it’s not true any longer.
M1A2 with Trophy just laughs at BMPT’s and helis, good luck doing the same with a 2A7V or Strv 122.
This ain’t 2022 any more chief, the T-80BVM is incredibly average nowadays and your performance in the T-80BVM is certainly nothing special either.
Strv 122 is indeed very strong still, but the main drawback is it’s long reload as opposed to the M1’s. Reload rate also matters more than frontal armour, and it’s not as if the M1A2 Trophy and SEP v3 have terrible armour now with their improved armour models.
Besides, if we’re going to act as though armour makes Russian tanks so much more forgiving: The T-80BVM doesn’t even have great armour to begin with.
It still uses the basic T-80B turret and that makes it one of the weaker turrets at 12.7. It also means you constantly get your roof armour penned even when largely turret down.
If anyone consistently struggles to pen T-80BVM’s, they’re simply suffering from a major Skill Issue™.
I don’t think you know what ‘‘Deflecting’’ means.
I addressed the argument directly and provided you with three problems of that DU hulls argument.
If you want to have the M1A1HA with DU hull armour in War Thunder, go ahead and make a suggestion for it.
In the meantime, M1’s are the best overall MBT’s in the entire game, even without these DU hulls.
PIN number.
ATM machine.
PDF format.
This is deflecting.
I asked you if you had the same issues with US prototype vehicles that only had extremely limited numbers (or even single digit) produced, you’ve neglected to answer that question.
Guys, this thread is about whether SEPv3’s hull armor upgrades are properly modelled or not, and how they could be.
Not about whether the Abrams is the best performing tank in the game’s universe, nor about whether it “deserves” to be properly modelled like every other tank or not “b-because it has good stats during its initial release’s flavour of the month phenomenon”.
It’s funny how the War Thunder community always understands and wishes for every tank to be properly depicted ingame… EXCEPT the Abrams. Ah, the Abrams is the only one to be fine and even deserve artificial nerfs “b-because it’s so good it doesn’t matter/it’s balanced”…
The whole comment is a satire and sarcasm, i have no idea how to make it more apparent that i wasn’t serious. Not to deny that i’m bad, however right now with Trophy being given to Abrams and most likely to Leo in the future, Merkava became worse Abrams with reverse gearbox. Kinda lost it’s charm, Israel’s CAS is also not unique anymore with SPICE being given out dilly dally.
How do i make it more apparent that i do not wish for T-series to be nerfed to the ground but to make balancing equal across all nations, as i stated earlier T-series has been overbalanced for the sake of it being viable, NATO is scrutinized and being balanced for the sake of realism, this thread started with rant on how gaijin thinks Abrams’s armor is not that good and brought bunch of stuff to make the case for it. The same is not done to Russia, that’s why Ariette sucks and not changed but T-series sucks and artificially buffed. I.e. Italy can be bad because it’s most likely bad, Russia can’t be bad and overbalanced to be made viable. I.e. Italy can be bad as it is but Russia can’t and is buffed. I don’t want all tanks to be the same, obviously some are better than others, That’s why Merkava isn’t being sold, it’s highly specialized for specific Israeli needs, it doesn’t need to cross bridges that’s why weight was not a limiting factor in it’s design. Some would be good some would be bad, but it wont be artificial. That’s why they made BR system, no? Like this update which was supposed to be focused on Abrams has included more Russia buffs than Abrams’s like superior HARMs, Relikt buff and turret ring NATO nerf which conveniently wasn’t finished on T’s like it’s not enough of a repair sim already. Double standards and special treatment.
That’s a myth, it being hybrid doesn’t mean that it is jack of all trades master of none, even logically it is a bit naive to suggest that Israel who were battling against T-series tanks and are expected to do in the future made Merkava without thinking about their past experiences, it’s a modern tank and it doesn’t make sense that they have made an 80 ton tank with 120mm cannon, more than a meter thick armor as well as m338 shell to fight against infantry but not against the only tank series they expect. That’s a heavy overkill if we assume so and Namers kinda lose their point.
Alright, probably time to return to the original topic :P
Yes, i agree that’s the case but there are other nations in game with terrible mobility and their armor is also trash.
Relikt ERA is not effective as they say it is in game and there are several videos online proving that now against older munitions even.
The problem isn’t that Russia has terrible tanks the problem is that even its armor is terrible in real life and should reflect that in game. The absence of planning for gun depression, reverse speed and good armor shouldn’t fall on the buffs it gets in games for its ERA.
If that’s the case other nations should get their artificial buffs to put it on par with everyone else.
I got a B850 + 9800X3D, but my ethernet port was screwed in a weird way, and because I had to, let’s say redesign, some of the heatsinks to make it fit the warranty is void.
There is something called ERA. Not sure if you are aware of how that works.
The issue presented was whether the nations are being treated equally in terms of getting their best prototype technologies at top tier. You pivoted to arguing that everyone gets them and that raising that concern was holding russia to a unfair double standard, which was not the argument being made. When it was pointed out that Russia is getting their newest prototypes and other nations are not, you again pivoted, saying that it was because those variants weren’t added (duh) and that it was a double standard to complain about Russia getting them (no one was complaining about prototypes being added in general).
Hence why you get a turret whos penetrable area looks like this:
Nope.
People take issue with a Russian top-tier MBT being in the game when IRL there have only been a low amount of numbers produced.
The double standards here are that these can be found in every single tech tree, yet you don’t hear people complaining about the non-Russian examples, even if they fit the exact same criteria.
Which is utter nonsense.
Remind me again what the Black Night is?
Remind me again what the Challenger 3 TD is?
Remind me again how the M10 Booker program is going?
There’s plenty of ultra-modern vehicles in the game which don’t belong to the Russian tech tree, two of those I just mentioned are also prototypes, one of which also has a superior APS to the Arena-M, and I don’t recall the Black Night’s APS being combat proven either, which the previous person took issue with in regards to Arena-M.
Of course, more of the double standards there.
Don’t forget I also ridiculed you for claiming the M1’s desperately need DU hulls, because that still is a ludicrous claim.
The US tech tree is filled with prototype vehicles, even recent ones, but just because that one single vehicle you’re interested in isn’t present in War Thunder, you’ll act as though this completely favours Russia.
If we did have the M1A1 HA with a DU hull, you’d just find some other vehicle to complain about, it’s an endless cycle with your type of people.
