-
I can hate something because it’s consistently surviving things it shouldn’t. That’s not being biased, having played it myself, I can say first hand a lot of things shot me that should’ve killed me.
-
T72B’s wiki on warthunder even says it only gets 20mm appliqué armor, and kontact 1
-
I was never talking about the T-72AV turms, which is the only T-72 with thermals until you get to the T-90A, the T-72AV should likely be 10.7 but it’s not a very effective vehicle, nor is the T-72B, but the AV at least has more benefits in its thermal.
-
All T-series tanks have the same easy to kill weakness therefore they are very easy to kill, as in warthunder you and be overly accurate, unlike irl vehicles which cannot be as pinpoint.
It’s funny how everyone forgets about the Pakistani T-80UD with a good thermal imager at 10.7 and the Swedish T-80U at 11.3.
Then move the Pakistani one up in BR to 11.0 then.
In either case, I tried to play a little 9.3 and gave up because you face nothing but T-80UDs in uptiers and there is little a 9.3 shell is gunna do to it. That thing is waaaay too strong for the BR
But you’ve already decided on the T-80UD without a thermal imager to 11.0.
This should be addressed primarily by decompression 10.0-11.0 above. Many tanks 10.3-10.7 pose too much of a problem for 9.3-9.7.
and?
So what, it still highly capable in every other regard. if TVD is a hard requirement, then lets move the FV4030/3 back down in BR as it doesnt have TVD either.
It should, but I would consider the T-80UD far closer in performance to current 10.7s prior to their recents buff. Even more so now
The absence of a thermal imager altogether and a second-generation thermal imager are two very different things.
Remind me, what is the difference between the M1A2, Click-Bait, and M1A2 SEP? Only the quality of the thermal imager (not even its presence).
So, does that mean all 12.0 versions should be 12.7?
So it’s not on the same BR as the Challenger mk2, but 0.3 lower. This is precisely because of the thermal imager (although there you have a difference between 0 and 1 generation, not 0 and 2, which is much more important) and a slightly worse shell.
I don’t think so. It’s the best Soviet tank at 10.3-10.7, but mainly because all the others are terrible.
The T-72B, T-72AV Turms, T-80B with 7.1 seconds, T-72M2 Moderna - they’re all very bad.
The only other good tank is the 292.
I bought the M1 KVT at a discount and have played a few matches with it. Honestly, neither the BMPT, nor the T-80UD, nor anything else has caused me any problems.
Honestly, I’m afraid to imagine how good it would feel before the BMPT and 6-second MZ.
Decompression is certainly necessary, but also so that the 9.3-9.7 does not encounter not only the T-80UD, but also the Abrams, Leopard 2, etc.
Right and?
So you are saying that a very very capable and very powerful MBT should be under BRed because it doesnt have a TVD?
Object 292 does just fine at 10.7 without TVD and I think that should be 11.0.
yes, they have some of the best firepower in-game (second best shell with a fast reload) with good mobility and pretty good suvivability
Quite frankly, them being 12.0 is just kinda stupid.
It also has a weaker shell. L23 vs L23A1 which makes a huge difference. A far greater difference than the lack of TVD.
Two identical tanks, one of which does not have a thermal imager at all, and the other has a 2nd generation thermal imager, cannot be on the same BR, as this is a significant difference in performance characteristics.
What does that have to do with anything? I just said that if you think the T-80UD is 11.0, then the T-80UD/BE is 11.3. I don’t think its effectiveness matches that.
If you look at the statistics for the T-80UD/BE at 10.7, it’s average or even slightly below average. Especially considering that it’s not the most popular event tank.
That is, if the T-80UD with an excellent thermal imager has 0.95 to 10.7, then the T-80UD without a thermal imager will have significantly less.
Okay, accepted
Yes, I mentioned that. The shells are not “terribly different,” but yes, they are worse.
However, I will repeat myself. In the case of the FV4030/3, we are comparing the absence of a thermal imager with a first-generation thermal imager, not the absence of a second-generation thermal imager.
That is a huge difference.
So your example is not valid. An improved shell + a poor thermal imager is quite equivalent to a good thermal imager. This is a matter of debate, but obviously, the FV4030/3 and Mk2 are at different BRs by 50% because of the thermal imager.
Then move both up 0.3. Sorted.
I dont see any issue with that increase. Most T-80s are too strong for their current BRs anyway, and that was before the buffs.
Actually, Id say its almost entirely because of the shell.
TVD would be nice, but id say 90% of it is because of the L23. Though even then. L23A1 struggles at that BR these days, Its not until L26 on the Mk3/DS that the Challenger 1s actually start to perform rather well
But if the FV4030/3 got L26, Id have no issue with it being 10.7, even if it didnt have TVD. Id hope it would get a little something else instead, but would still make it a 10.7 worthy MBT
For the record. 3BM42 is far far closer to the L26s performance than the L23A1 and thats also without mentioning the 9M119 ATGM the T-80UD can use.
Also whilst on paper the Challenger 1s have a 5 second reload and the T-80UD have a 6 second reload, the micro ready rack Gaijin uses to nerf the Challenger 1 means that for a good chunk of the match, the Challenger 1 probably has a longer reload than the T-80UD.
So Challenger Mk2 vs T-80UD both at 10.3. to be honest. The only real advantage the Mk2 has is the Gen 1 thermal imager.
In all other respect (Firepower, survivability and mobility (at least in forward drive)) the T-80UD is stronger.
do you consider the Mk2 and T-80UD equal?
I personally would consider the T-80UD far far closer to the Challenger DS or Leoaprd 2 (PzBtl 123) as its just shy of being equal to the DS and sueprior to the Leo 2 in terms of firepower. Whilst having notably better survivability at the cost of no TVD. Which quite frankly. With the micro maps you are usually on, isnt that big of a deal.
So?
No.
Leopard 2AV 0.3 lower than Leopard 2a4. No TVD, but more powerfull shell.
T-80UM2 has been lower than T-80U several years because doesn’t have TVD
1 Like
Meanwhile, I’m wondering why the T-90M hasn’t gone down to 12.0 yet.
It also has no lineup.
Its probably being used at 11.0 or 11.3 most of the time and facing way stronger tanks. Looks more like a compression issue
T-80UD though at 10.3 is doing very well
I still dont see why this is an excuse for the T-80UD to be under BRed. Just move it up to 10.7.
Because its doing fine at 12.7?
Mobility and gun handling stopped existing?
Saying that the T-80UD has better mobility than the Chally Mk.2 is a bit of a joke.
Again, you’re ancedotal experience with the vehicle does not change anything about it’s armour capabilities.
the vast majority of the time you will die in one hit.
Same as the T64A.
also a little hint for you- If you state, factually that you hate something, you are in fact biased against said thing. Irregardless of what you think.
I hate the turms 3, I am inherently biased against it and when discussing it sometimes downplay certain aspects of it.
The KPZ/ MBT 70 is not really comparable to the T64A now it has the same reload as the KPZ 70 which has the fastest reload out em all at 6 seconds.
So you’re telling me the wikipedia ignores the complete rework to the composite array under the kontact ERA and the additional steel plate?
As the T72A gets a modidication to add a 20MM steel plate to the hull, funny that.
AS the T72B Does not get an additional steel plate on the UFP:
on top of this you are completely ignoring my point the T72A has older, substantially worse composites compared to the T72B
As shown here. the T72B composites on the UFP, as well as the turret are far more advanced, to the point the T90M in game has the same composites as the T72B
I merely brought the T72AV up as it’s the only high BR T72 which shares the hull armour with the original T72A, as it’s just an upgraded modification of the T72A, I do not believe it should move to 10.7 at all it’s perfectly balanced at 10.3 as it protection level is effectively that of a 9.3.
Again, my point in warthunder is, IRL is irrelevant.
That you should be aiming for the same weakpoints from 9.3 up until 12.7 , the armour on most T72s is irrelevant by aiming. That is all.
TBH the T80UD/BE could easily have been 11.0 before the buff to it, it’s only drawback was the poor mobility , the round you there are worse found on the MSC for example.
It could easily be 10.7 TBH : D
TVD in general does warrant a BR increase in most cases, but there are exceptions to the rule, for example there is the T80U without thermals at 11.7 which is pretty poor.
Yeah but that also has the mobility advantage and access to the same round 3bm42 :D
Definitely agree with this man.
Can tell you before it got the 6 second reload and had the 6.5 it was in fact great at 10.7 lol, i haven’t even tried it at 10.3 don’t have a lineup in USSR for that BR.
1 Like
Technically not true the DM23 on the leopard 2A4 is more potent than the DM33 on the 2Av it does more
They’re the same BR the T80UM2 and the tech tree T80U
It does but? The T80UD mobility is pretty damn great cause of the 1000HP engine and only weighing 46 tones.
The thing has a P2W ratio of 21.74 while CR1 MK2 with the dozer blade has only 20.28.
The T80UDs disadvantage is going backwards lol.
but yeah the gun handling on CR1 is phenomonal in comparison
1 Like
The thing is, does the ~1 HP/ton make up for the inability to actually reverse (4 km/h vs ~37 km/h)?
Imo it does not, so that is why for me the Challenger has better mobility and it’s not even close.
1 Like
The T80UD is better forward moving, as well as that the playstyles are different, realisitically you shouldn’t be reversing in the T80UD.
Over all the CR1 has better mobility backwards though.
1 Like
That relies a lot on your enemies being idiots though.
1 Like
not really? it relies on you positioning properly as to not get flanked