Too much of a boost by as much as 33%
It is not clear at all why they explode (especially more often than ammunition)
The M1 and Leopard 2 are susceptible to damage to their turret traverse mechanisms when penetrated by projectiles striking their side armor, potentially resulting in complete loss of combat capability. In contrast, even after being penetrated in the side by an APFSDS round whose penetration has been degraded by explosive reactive armor (ERA), the T-90 can often retain at least one opportunity to return fire, provided the hit does not cause catastrophic ammunition detonation.
Furthermore, while most nations were still constrained to AGM-65 missiles, Russian forces were already employing KH-38 missiles beyond the engagement range of enemy SPAA systems to destroy armored targets. Additionally, the Pantsir-S1 air defense system has maintained a overwhelming advantage over comparable systems from other countries for a prolonged period.
2 Likes
Funny how when the autoloader on T series gets damaged they can still turn perfectly fine but when the NATO tanks get sneezed at the turret traverse is always the first to get damaged
In Gaijin’s understanding, the entire basket assembly is considered the driving mechanism for turret rotation. This is as absurd as claiming that a car cannot move if the driver’s legs are tied down.
2 Likes
Do russian tanks not have basket assemblies too? The double standard is blatantly obvious.
Clearly not Comrade, It’s just “armor”
2 Likes
A common assertion is that T-series tanks utilize a rotating floor design. However, in the game, the autoloader of T-series tanks rotates along with the turret. In reality, factual accuracy isn’t the primary concern, as Gaijin can selectively restore equipment performance or relegate bug-fixing plans to the bottom of their development schedule. If Gaijin wants a vehicle to perform exceptionally well, they will make it so—any missing parameters can be filled based on their own understanding (or biases), while players are required to provide exhaustive reference materials to challenge these decisions.
Russia’s dominance in the game is evident. While the T-80BVM with its 6.5-second reload rate is naturally inferior in firepower to the Abrams with a 5-second reload, its significantly smaller vulnerable area grants it a higher survivability baseline. The Pantsir-S1’s overwhelming effectiveness persisted for an exceptionally long duration, while some nations only recently acquired 12.0-rated air defense systems. Moreover, getting instantly obliterated by a KH-38 missile right after leaving the spawn point is hardly an enjoyable experience.
Due to the perceived strength of the Russian top-tier vehicles, a significant number of new players have flocked to and purchased perium Russian vehicles, which ironically results in a relatively low win rate for the Russian team.
2 Likes
The snails added the Ukrainian Oplot tank and set its ERA to the level of Soviet ERA from the 1980s. But in reality, there’s a document like this:
since when does russia have a 12.0 premium tank, thats new to me
well i guess from 8.7 all the way to top tier there are only premium players playing russia
The T-90M cannot fire back if its ammo detonates.
Once again, the ERA protects 54mm on the side, despite it being obviously angled in the bags.
AGM-65Ds and Kh-38MTs are equally useless against SLM, CLAWS, and so forth.
Pantsir S1 is a bad SPAA [against top CAS platforms] and has never once done anything against F-15E played anywhere close to correctly.
Edit:
Pantsir S1, much like EldE, CS/SA5… are only really effective against the weaker 12.0 and lower CAS platforms.
1 Like
Soviet equipment uses explicitly declassified information.
M1A1 is not Russian.
P51H5NA is not Russian.
Soviets had a top 5 MBT for a whole month, and it was the worst of the top 5.
Pantsir has never been effective against top CAS platforms because it doesn’t have the 25km+ of range needed.
1 Like
Considering the twofold weakening of the Pantsir missiles, as well as the fact that the radar is ballast, it is impossible to achieve the same efficiency that was present for several months after the appearance of the Pantsir.
Yeah, Yeah Russian win rate suck bla bla bla that mean Russia is not good compare to …
while British and Chinese who have worse line up than Russia yet still have better win rate for some reason
it is because China and Britain TT are better Russia?
or it’s because of players?
Type 99A, Type 99 prototype, VT-4A1, CS/SA5, HQ-17.
MBT-2000 as backup, soon a standard VT-4 as more backup.
That’s a strong lineup of highly mobile tanks firing 3BM60 equivalent rounds.
I find it better than the Soviet lineup, which is partly why I’m grinding for it.
thats why you should always compare them to other major nations like germany or the USA
and suprise suprise it is still worse than the winrates from germany and US
2 Likes
omg someone brought a sturer emil to 10.3 full uptier match, then kill my T-72 with it lol I thought bussian armor would prevent something like this from happening
I gonna uninstall the game due to embarrasement
5 Likes
2 Likes
damn US bombs are worse than a german WW2 APHE shell
thats crazy
3 Likes