Why on earth did you guys reduce the reload rate of the already over powerd russian t72,t80 and t90s they were alway the most over powerd before reducing the reload now there firing 3 shots to every other nations mbt’s 1 shot if any br 10.0 tanks needed a buff would be british chalengers israle merkavas. And now 9.7 to 12.7 is ruined with the bmpt and bmpt-72 as well as the t72, T80 and T90s. Every where i go online i hear the devs have russian bios if these t72s were this great ukraine war would have been over in 2 days but looking at what tanks are realy better than what only have to gander online even putin said the leopards, chalenger, and abrams are currently superior to russian tanks hence why he has gone ahead with ordering the t14s. Maybe the devs should have this in mind when creating tanks for realistic battles and not there wet dream of what tanks are best. And yes i am complaining about bmpts even though i purchased 1 for my self i wonder how many players have quit the game due to the bmpt release and i wonder if wots had an increase of players over tge christmas period due to this
lol
Ngl Russia 10.3-10.7 is probably one of the best BR lineups in game. Newly buffed T-80s + BMPT/72 + 2s38 + BMP-2M + Tunguska + Su-25/BM is an insane lineup no other nation can match.
0.1 reload buff to Soviet tanks.
“OP! OP!”
1 second reload buff to Abrams, Ariete, Leclerc, etc.
Silence
Of course, Shrek is just shilling for Russian tanks, doing their best to defend them to the best of their abilities.
You really should not fight on 9.3 br and above in a Maus. ( since even after the buffs most Nato MBT’s actually still fire faster compared to t72/80/90)
And while playing 10.7 USA on lately, biggest issue seems to be , people NOT AIMING on that terminator. I got only 105mm cannons on that lineup and bradley, facing em is actually no difference while playing lower br’s and being decimated by 35mm oerlikon spammers.
To be honest, it is more like a payback on nato players who can stomp on lower br’s by autocannons.
Best bet against terminators is to make em play repair simulator if you cant aim on lower plate / side first. Just shoot missiles / gun and enjoy
well, modern mbt in the ukranai-russia war sucks, is bucouse 1) FPV drones 2) Mud, heavy Winters and briges. Modern MBT are way to heavy to drive in these condistion, but in Warthunder we dont have it yet. That why there are using T55s.
Russia lost somany T80/72 that they are using T62 tanks.
He actually played the T-72A and its 0.5KD
No, the DPR and LPR armies are. The militias. Not the actual Russian Army. And they are used as artillery platforms much like the T-55.
BMPT is horrendous, I’ve mentioned multiple times the fact it gets 5 crew + spall liners + ERA all over makes it way to powerful at 10.7
Not to mention 4 ATGM’s and 850 rounds of 30mm APDS.
I don’t want an outright nerf, just placed higher in BR
Your whole comment seems stupid to me. I have the entire USSR tree and I’ve played at every BR, and reloads have always been horrible for us. You complain that Russian tanks like the T-72 and T-90 reload in 7 seconds instead of 7.1—WOW BRO, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING. The T-80 and T-64 are better, and I think Leopard 2s should reload in 5.5 s instead of 6 s to make it fairer.
Russian tanks are realistic, but war is much more complicated, and you’re comparing real life with a game, which honestly is dumb. On top of that, Russian tanks have a different design philosophy from Western ones. Comparing them and saying one is better than the other based on a few things is idiotic. Do you even know why the USSR and Russia still keep that design philosophy? And Western tanks might be better, maybe because each NATO tank costs over 7 million, while a Russian one costs much less—but NATO tanks are not invincible. Making them “realistic” wouldn’t turn them into miracles. All NATO tanks would have the same weak spots, and if they had realistic armor, they should also have realistic ammunition in terms of penetration.
EBM60 could penetrate the hull of Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, Leclerc, Merkava, Type 10/90, and more—and the same goes for Western tank ammo. The Abrams didn’t change its hull armor until very late, and very few units had DU in the hull; remember the hull was designed to withstand 115 mm, not 125 mm. Leopards have about 500 mm on the strongest part of the hull, but due to how the armor is distributed, you could destroy one by shooting slightly lower. Challengers would have the lower glacis and driver’s weak spot—do you really think 320 mm of NERA would save it from EBM60?
The Leclerc and Type 10/90 have poor armor distribution, leaving several gaps without NERA armor, and even their strongest areas couldn’t withstand modern APFSDS. Chinese tanks have a huge lower plate without composite armor—a massive weak spot. The Merkava 1, 2, and 3—you just need to look at their armor layout; it’s pretty bad against APFSDS. The Merkava 4 would be better, but it wouldn’t be immortal. Russian tanks would have the same armor they currently have, but with modern ammunition they could still be penetrated—for example, DM53 can penetrate the hull of Russian tanks with Kontakt-5.
In conclusion: “cry less, play more.”
The T-80B’s reload went from 7.1s to 6.0s. You also don’t need an aced crew to achieve that reload.
The T-80B, T-64B, and T-64A have the same autoloader as the T-80, so it wouldn’t make sense for them to have different reload times.
Just correcting him because some autoloaders got a 1.0s reduction, some 0.5s reduction. Only the T-72/90ss got the 0.1s reduction.
It could also get that nerf of making its “external ammo belt” consistently ammorackable and not like 10% chance
Personally i wouldnt say russian tanks are overpowered. Yeah they can be inconsistent with taking damage, and in my opinion have a little bit more survivability than western tanks in certain circumstances, but not to the point they are overpowered. Russian CAS on the other hand is a different story, more specifically the LMURS, being the only ones that seem get actual flight performance to be able to top down attack, while the others just dont have that capability so are way more inconsistent.
Because the Russians are poor? I mean the one time they tried to produce a new tank they ditched there so called “fantastic design” in favor of a western style mbt.
The last time a figure was given for the t90m it was about 4-5 million dollars while a sepv3 comes in at about 6-7 million dollars a unit. So they aren’t really that much cheaper and I would far rather be in the Abrams than a t90m.
I also don’t believe realistically russian 125mm darts could punch through very much of the armor on nato tanks(excluding the weak spots which are hard to hit for most tanks), especially newer nato tanks like the 2A7 and sep v3 with du hull armor. I don’t know anything about the leclerc or Merkava’s kinetic protection the ariete is an ariete. and the type 10 is classified in pretty much every regard from armor layout to actual protection levels, keeping in mind it operates at three different levels of protection. I also don’t understand why you are saying the abrams was designed for protection against a 115mm round and not 125mm rounds considering the ussr’s main battle tanks at the start of the abrams development and throughout its development were already using 125mm cannons.
Now I’ve only done the bare minimum looking into this but expo figures for the 3bm60 round put it at what 300mm of penetration at around 2000 meters, which would fail to punch through the Abrams hull if I’m correct and is sorely lacking compared to like the estimated 600mm of penetration from like DM53 off of a leo. Granted I could be completely wrong about those numbers someone let me know if I am.
Personally I think IRL soviet designs suffer from lack of battlefield awareness and flexibility, as well as the platform has reached its limit in really being able to be upgraded. I do agree with you though the idea that Nato mbts are invincible is stupid, and war thunder is a game with its own meta not reflective of real life.
I partly agree, but there are mistakes. I don’t know where you got that 3BM60 penetrates 300 mm at 2000 m—you probably confused it with another round, because that kind of penetration doesn’t make sense.
About tank costs: I said NATO tanks exceed 7 million per produced tank, and you basically confirmed it—but think about how insanely expensive the Leclerc is. Compared to Russian tanks, whose cost is always under 5 million, there’s still a big difference.
In terms of penetration, yes, it can penetrate a 2A7 if you don’t aim directly at the most armored area and instead aim a bit lower. Also, the 38 mm plate on the Abrams should be easily penetrated and shouldn’t ricochet the way it does in the game.
No tank is perfect or invincible—especially not Russian tanks—but complaining about tanks whose only good feature is their armor makes no sense.
that’s at a 60* plate, Russian rounds are not optimized for high angle penetration unlike NATO rounds for obvious reasons. flat pen estimates for 3BM60 is ~800 to 830mm RHA equivalent at 0* 2000m. 3BM46 has about 660mm 0* @ 2000m
true, straight off the bat you have 1 less crewman, which is 1 less person looking for threats and while I obviously don’t know what kind of information systems they have in them I would have to assume their much smaller size and more cramped interior makes it harder to fit in new systems.
yes, and this is a core principle in the Russian doctrine, that in wartime losses are inevitable, so equipment and training must be of quality and cost that can be maintained above lose rates. NATO builds the best tanks they can afford, Russia builds the best tanks they can replace as fast or faster then they lose them.
A very important thing to remember.