Russia top tier tanks are miserable and there is no way to fix that

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
23

They do have bad survivability its an objective fact
3 crew
Massive instakill weakspots
Bad reverse if your gun gets shot
Bad gun handling

No??? What are you smoking

Ironically the soviets have the worst tanks for CQC well except for the challenger

You’re pretty much going “yes they suck in literally every important metric BUT LOOK THEY HAVE SLIGHTLY BETTER SIDE ARMOUR”
if you’re genuinely aiming at Relikt plates at an obscene angle still thats on you i don’t even know how you’d end up hitting the side relikt honestly because the only situation that should happen is if the guy is sidescraping but in that case if you fuck up just reverse away

6 Likes
24

Except for the BVM, all the others are kinda mid. Not the worst, but still ok. Usable with the great supporting tanks/jets

25

You can literally look for yourself in armour viewer. Those frontal Relikt plates grant immunity even to DM53. Only Leopard 2A7 / 122’s have a smaller surface area that is frontally penetrable.

Chally, Merkava, Ariete, Leclerc, Abrams, Type 10/90, all have a significantly greater area.

Compared to what? 2A7? What about everything else?

2A7/122 and 90M / BVM, maybe also the Chinese tanks are the only top tier tanks you actually need to aim for weakspots on. Everything else can just be centre-mass lolpenned. That’s a significant advantage in CQB where every millisecond matters, and the ability to snapshot can win 1v1’s.

My whole post was focusing on survive-ability. Not once did I deny they have other weaknesses, and my comment was more focusing on their frontal protection. Idk how you came away from it with only the side armour stuff, but you’re welcome to strawman me if you wish.

11 Likes
26

“maybe also the Chinese tanks are the only top tier tanks you actually need to aim for weakspots on.”

nah, the chinese ones are mostly lolpen too. huge lfp

1 Like
27

Aye, it’s why I maybe them lol.

The smart guys who hide the LFP do require a bit of aiming to dispatch. So often I see people fire into their ERA and pikachu facing that it didn’t go through lol.

28

My biggest issue with Soviet tree is the reverse speeds on their MBTs, unless the Oplot gets added, expect the same thing out of every Soviet MBT.

1 Like
29

gijin please oplot i beg

1 Like
30

At top tier, Strv 122s/Leo 2s are easily the best. Second is IMO the BVM. Its an absolute powerhouse, its fast, small, punchy, and has amazing armor coverage. Only thing besides the Leos beating the BVM are the Japanese MBTs. Those things however have a high skill floor and and an extremely high skill ceiling.

3 Likes
31

Bro its nearly identical what are you smoking

8cba19b4-3bd5-43d7-acd4-b6ee4ed97fb3
8cba19b4-3bd5-43d7-acd4-b6ee4ed97fb31920×1080 173 KB

d1aea5ef-a84b-414b-ba51-ee5f3fa4dd63
d1aea5ef-a84b-414b-ba51-ee5f3fa4dd631920×1080 171 KB

If anything the T-90 would have a worse weakspot since it doesn’t have an autobounce UFP or good gun depression

And please enlighten the class which MBTs have better gun handling, reload and reverse speed because it sure as hell isnt mr fucked up his shot 7.1s reload and 4kph reverse T-90

Mobility is a part of survivability if you cant reverse away from danger to allies or into cover you have worse survivability

Oh cry me a river we’ve had to deal with razervon enough on the forum that excuse doesn’t work anymore

6 Likes
32

Oh 100%. They range from good to amazing in just about every single way. The only thing I can fault them for is the bad case of ‘NATO-Hump’ over the rear, but if you’re front is towards enemy as it should be that’s no deal breaker.

I ain’t claiming 90M / BVM are the best, they clearly aren’t, I’m just making the point that they are definitely amongst the conversation of most survivable things at top tier.

6 Likes
33

Id still put the abrams 2nd over the BVM, again like i usually say in these types of posts is that russian tanks are only good against bad players who dont know map positioning or how to aim the skill ceiling on the abrams is far higher but so is the skill floor lower which is why you end up with such terrible abrams players despite the fact that the tank is incredibly good

1 Like
34

There’s definitely a subjective debate to be had there. I don’t think it’s without merit that so many opted to use Abrams in the competitive scene, even when BVM was an option. Post RoF buff, Abrams in good hands is a monster.

Like you rightly say, Abrams has a higher skill ceiling, but I do think equally, BVM has a higher skill floor. Which for the average player in randoms probably means more.

ERA / Spall liners just offer so much of that all important jank factor lmao. I’m not a good player, bang average at best, but even watching skilled players, when they aim good and proper on an Abrams, it usually has its intended effect, but so often when they aim perfectly on a Leo / BVM / 90M, it’s like a dice roll on whether ‘RNG’ feels like screwing them or not lol.

6 Likes
35

I was just giving my opinion, not attacking any of yours. I probably replied to the wrong message

1 Like
36

Oh no attack felt mate, don’t worry lol.

Absolutely a fair take regardless who you aimed it at.

1 Like
37

Yesterday I played a few matches with Russia and remembered how survivable they are.

In one match, my T-90M was shot SIX times.

3 shots were stopped by the armor, including a side shot eaten by the Relikt ERA.

The other 3 shots didn’t even hurt a single crewman- only destroyed the engine after harmlessly punching through the autoloader and whole crew compartment.

And these people claim that “it suffers” and start raging and insulting you if you dare suggest these tanks aren’t as terrible as they make them out to be.

Then you have the Abrams, where 50% of the penetrations are a one-hit kill and 50% of the penetrations will anihilate the driver, engine, transmission, vertical traverse mechanism, hydraulic pump, horizontal traverse mechanism and gun breech (only to be finished off in a second shot you can do nothing to avoid)… and they claim that tank is OP and, again, begin insulting you if you dare even suggest it it may not be as OP as they make it out to be just because it has better depression and reverse speed.

The way I see it, American and Russian MBTs are more or less equivalent in an asymmetrical way.

American tanks are worse in general but have higher potential, while Russian tanks are better in general but have lower potential.

-Abrams: high floor (bad), but high ceiling (good).

In short: harder to do well with for the average player, but easier to do extraordinarily well with for the better player.

-Russia: low floor (good), but low ceiling (bad).

In short: more easy to do well with for the average player, but harder to do extraordinarily well with for the better player.

Basically, Abrams can do great if you spend the entire match hidding behind a hill and only popping 0.17 pixels of your turret to shoot for 0.2 seconds. Dare to play a bit more aggressively and you are dead; on the other hand, Russian tanks can do great if you just kinda rush and brawl, but their weaknesses are more limiting for a more agile player who wants to do even better.

15 Likes
38

Ah yes the infamous one Russian tanks are miserable
I hope you don’t blame Strv122 and 2A7 for their miserable fate.

1 Like
39

Aka the tank most countries have?

40

I’m talking about the ones with appliqué armour, so one in Germany. One in Italy. Three in Sweden.

3/10 countries.

41

They have class, and dying with class on the battlefield is priceless my friend

42

It already has the historical reload rate, as due to limitations with the T-80s autoloaders design you can’t place two APFSDS shells next to each other as they quite frankly don’t fit. Yes, it takes 6 seconds to reload the shell next over, but if you want a shell of the same type as you just shot then you need to shift 2 spaces in the autoloader where the closest shell of the same type is placed, which is where the 6.5 second figure comes from. Same reason why the T-72 has a 7.1 second reload even though it can reload faster, Gaijin takes into account that you need to shift spaces in the autoloader to find a new shell and adds that factor to the theoretical reload rate.

This is an inherent flaw of the design of carousel-style autoloaders, unlike western-style revolver or casette autoloaders which trade ammo capacity for quicker reload rates, not Gaijin artificially nerfing russian reload rates.

2 Likes