I like it cause you can get it in a hull down while pulling into cover between your shots, and the armor is ridiculously durable on it.
1 Like
It wont regenerate spall because the tank will explode before it does… Leopards challies and abrams benefit more than they lose from this
1 Like
Tell me you’ve never played a Leclerc without telling me you’ve never played a Leclerc
I don’t know why that idea keeps floating around.
It may be true for lower tiers (WW2) where flanking is a thing, guns can’t snipe from across the map and there are a lot of differences between each tank in terms of mobility.
At top tier though, you get something like ~10 kph of difference between fastest and slowest, on MBTs that mostly go about 65-70
In addition to that, maps are far too small and flanking is far less of a thing, so arriving to a spot first changes little (not to mention the paths to reach said spots can be assymetrical due to map design).
Personal experience of course, but so far i’ve been doing far better in my MSC (started playing it recently only) than regular Leclerc, simply because armor is better and even if an enemy round pens, it can be sufficiant to weaken the round enough so it doesn’t do significant damage.
1 Like
forgot to mention it, ive killed so many by fuel explosions
No. 90% of the time my turret drive, vertical drive, and hydros get instantly knocked out on a pen. If the verticle drive doesnt go I MIGHT be able to angle my tank to try a lucky return shot IF the enemy isn’t smart and tries to drive past me instead of holding and angle and baiting a panic shot from me. Vast majority of the time, the vertical and horizontal are knocked out at the same time.
So you almost never can ACTUALLY return fire as a NATO tank. T Series? No problem, your turrent and vertical work fine if you survive the pen. That happens less than a nato tank surviving a pen, but most the time a nato tank survives its not able to effectively fall back and gets killed anyway.
3 Likes
Russian MBT’s have among the lowest winrates right now.
He’s also right in saying armour plays a relatively small role in War Thunder’s meta.
Mobility, reload and gun handling characteristics are more important.
Armour =/= Survivability.
Armour = Likelihood of being penetrated.
Survivability = Amount of damage taken when penetrated.
I don’t play the Merkava Mk.4M, but the T-80BVM has piss poor survivability.
In a previous reply you mentioned that your opinion holds more weight due to your stats and number of matches played.
Well, BPA_Jon recently did a ranking of the various top-tier MBT’s and they were as follows: Abrams > Strv 122 > Leopard 2A7 > Type 10 > Merkava Mk.4 > ZTZ-99A/WZ-1001 > T-80BVM/T-90M
Every single one of the most skilled players I know of (BPA_Jon, Hazeyy, Cavenub, etc. etc.) considers these Russian MBT’s to be among the weakest at top-tier. All of them have SIGNIFICANTLY more experience than you do.
I’d take a M1A1 Abrams over a T-80BVM any day, and I too have thousands of battles at high tiers across four separate nations.
You overestimate a T-80BVM’s mobility:
You’re using my armour comparison chart, but not my mobility chart which you’ve presumably also seen me use on multiple occasions?
A Leopard 2A7V’s acceleration is nearly identical to a T-80BVM, and that’s the literal slowest Leopard 2 in the entire game.
So the T-80BVM sacrifices neutral steering, reverse steering and reverse speed only to gain less than half a second of difference to 45 km/h?
2 Likes
yeah so basically that was his issue, which is something completely unrelated to what im trying to say, we wouldn’t need to poke at all to mg you.
is this supposed to be surprising? it only takes effect out past >700 meters, after which it becomes pretty hard to take out barrels quickly, and the ring i don’t care about because that’s just gaijin taking forever to apply them to all Abrams’ models, and the new one is substantially stronger.
I’m going to take this as him being alone, so yeah it’s his error as i said above.
1 Like
Just to elaborate on the Merkava being more survivable based on statshark statistics, BVM K/D ratio is around 1.2 while the Merkava 4m is at around 1.7. That is a very big difference not to mention the fact that Israel has a decent win rate at 50.2% in comaprison to the 48%. For the month of June BVM is one of the least favourable tanks to play, again based on statshark which is fairly accurate.
or you could look at the player numbers and realize its the most spammed tank in the game thus having an overall less skilled player base compared to a niche tank like the Merkava thats played by more hardcore players.
1 Like
I started to think you forgot the difference between mediocre and good Renzo.
Just because Abrams is better than T-90M doesn’t mean T-90M is bad.
1 Like
It’s in the bottom half of the 12.7 MBT rankings for me, so yes that is mediocre for me.
Might also be because I maybe misuse the word mediocre, since for me it goes: Great → good → decent/okay → meh → mediocre → bad → garbage.
The T-90M is in the meh-mediocre range for me.
2 Likes
If thats how your ranking works then its fine but i still consider it as good tank.
Anyway since ranking is completely subjective I respect that.
2 Likes
This is due to multiple factors.
For one, Skilled players prioritize the new Abrams over the T-90MA, which leads to the better players using the Abrams right now. Secondly, the Mi-28NM had the LMUR crippled, which now means it isn’t getting free kills. Thirdly, while the win rate has gone down, the KD of the vehicles has remained roughly the same, meaning the tanks themselves have not gotten worse.
That’s certainly why the T-80BVM and Leopard 2A7V dominated the META for so long and why the new SEPv3 and Trophy Abrams are stomping top tier. Tanks like the Ariete, Leclerc, Merkava, Type 10, and Type 99 are all poorly performing because they’re simply left-clickable while the Leopards, Abrams, T-90M, and T-80BVM are not.
Armor delays the time it takes to guarantee a good hit, requiring more skillful fire, especially at longer ranges. While the Leopard 2A7V can sit in relative comfort from a hull-down position at distance, tanks like the Merkava struggle to even stop 3BM42 unless they strategically take advantage of angle mechanics. The idea that armor is irrelevant at high tier is such a stupid take, and it has been proven time and time again that it isn’t just useful but decides an entire top tier bracket.
Once again, Exhibit A is the SEPv3 and Trophy Abrams, which are, once again, dominating top tier because of their additional protection. If protection didn’t matter, the BMP-T would never have gotten a higher BR than 10.3 with ATAKA missiles and 30mm APDS.
That’s so ungodly untrue.
A layer of survivability.
The Merkava has 300-400mm across its entire front and is about 3 times or more in size. The BVM, while easy to kill when penetration is successful (as with literally every MBT in-game), does not get penetrated easily because Relikt is extremely inconsistent and will often eat APFSDS where it shouldn’t.
BPA_Jon is a good player and definitely outperforms me by a mile. That said, keep in mind that these ratings are tailored for him and aren’t always 100 percent accurate. The average player will find the T80BVM significantly easier to use thanks to its well-rounded mobility and excellent protection. This list also agrees with me that armor is very important. It puts the Abrams high up because of its strong turret protection and fast 5-second reload. The STRV122 ranks this high because it’s one of the best-protected MBTs at the top tier, and it just received the DM53. The Leopard 2A7 has a bit less hull armor, but its overall performance is pretty close to the Strv122. The Type 10 is a tank that needs a ton of skill to play well. It’s mainly strong in long-range fights, but it fills a unique niche that no other MBT really does. The Merkava earns its high rating mainly from its excellent transmission and APFSDS rounds, even though its armor can be unreliable. It also got a nerf to its turret roof composite, which made it just as weak against HE as the Type 10. The Type 99 is a pretty miserable MBT overall and should never be considered better than the T80BVM or T90M.
The ERA carries them, which is why they win so often, but any claim that the Chinese MBTs are better is irrefutably wrong.
Undeniably, but you’re being rude about it. I simply asked how he, with 2000 games, was familiar with WarThunder top tier. You’re just calling me inferior. I still average a 1.5 to 3KD at 10.7BR+, which is above average.
Sure, man, play the M1A1 at 12.7 and tell me how it goes.
I don’t. I own the T-80BVM and I love its mobility.
Nope. I do distinctly remember you challenging me on SEPv3-related information though when I have direct ties to people who operate and maintain them. You did shut up pretty quick after last time, though. Furthermore, did you even read your own list? It shows the BVM beating other tanks in mobility at lower speeds.
Remind me how well the BVM maintains speed in turns compared to the Leopard 2A7V. The 2A7V is solid in a straight line on road surfaces, but the BVM beats it in turns and off-road performance.
“sacrifices”, but neutral steering isn’t a necessary component for a tank to perform well. Many tanks turn best when you accelerate, then turn, which the BVM does well.
All you’re doing right now is lashing out in anger like last time. You claim to know this information, but you couldn’t properly identify a SEPv3 and its upgrades, yet you present yourself as an authority on the topic. Right now, you’re doing that same thing by ignoring the Transmission performance difference between the BVM and 2A7V in-game.
1 Like
Skill gap.
Skill gap and dependent on team build. There is usually only 1 or 2 Merkava tanks a game, which aren’t likely to influence a match as much as major nations. 1 player can only do so much for a team. Even BPA_Jon can’t control 3 caps at once against an entire enemy team.
The BVM is the second most played tank in the entire game for June. The fact it was played 1.86 million times and maintains a 1.3KD is an indicator that it’s rather good, even to the average player.
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
the turret ring change along with volumetric and a rework for the internals makes the tank harder to disable with 1 shot, it may not be an armor change but the survivability did go up a good bit.
i also see a lot of people asking for a buff to Russian tanks but what exactly could they get that they didn’t already get from the devs
In the grand scheme of things it’s still relatively minor, the turret ring is still vulnerable to 90% of your opponents, and the LFP is still vulnerable to 99% of the same opponents on the SEP v3.
If you were told to play 10 games in two ‘mystery’ M1’s each, both of which have no visual differences but one uses the armour model of the SEP v3 and the other the M1A2 (regular), I doubt you’d be able to tell which was which at the end of those 10 games.
In fact, there’s still a few highly impactful nerfs they should receive, including to their vertical drives.
The T-72B3, T-90M, etc. all have a 40°/sec vertical drive right now, but this is incorrect and it should still be 3.5°/sec.
My best bet would be on Soviet '80s and '90s prototypes.
4 Likes
M1A2 SEP v3 ---- 1.91
M1A2 Trophy ---- 1.81
Merkava Mk.4M -1.68
Leopard 2A7HU -1.65
Strv 122B+ ---------1.53
TKX --------------------1.48
Black Night --------1.43
Leopard 2A7V ----1.40
Strv 122B PLSS --1.40
M1A2T ---------------1.37
Type 10 --------------1.37
Strv 122A -----------1.36
M1A2 SEP ----------1.34
Challenger 2E -----1.31
Leclerc SXXI -------1.29
T-80BVM ------------ 1.27
T-90M Arena -------1.26
Leclerc ---------------1.22
leclerc AZUR ------1.22
Leclerc S2 ----------1.21
T-90M -----------------1.14
VT4A1 ----------------1.13
Leopard 2A6 ----- 1.09
T-80BVM is bottom 35%.
Doesn’t seem quite as impressive now, does it?
1 Like
That is literally what I just said.
1.86 million games and an average KD of 1.3 is not mediocre.
The win rate was; the BVM itself is performing well even now despite such a winrate
Swedish players are, on average, better than Russian players. A tank’s KD is not defined by the external factors of CAS and SPAA. The KD of a T-80BVM won’t increase simply because it has LMUR or KH38 missiles on its team. All that does is spike the win rate.
The 2A7V’s upgrade package was for the hull primarily, not the turret. The 2A6 functions very similarly in a hull-down position.
The T-90M, while not great in its mobility or reload, is a bunker in armor.
The single best MBT because the T-90M is the most armored one in-game. The reload and reverse are its primary issues, which will be half fixed by the time the T-90M2 is added. Once again, you’ve also proven me right by suggesting the T-90M would be the best MBT in-game with those changes because its armor isn’t a degrading factor.
Are we deadass? The hull gains 70-80mm of kinetic protection, which isn’t substantial, but it gains huge amounts of chemical protection, and the turret is now capable of stopping 3BM60 from an angle on the weak part of the turret where the Abrams can’t usually. Not to mention the Trophy Abrams can survive pretty much any ATGM with ease, and it can even eat KH38s at extreme ranges.
Right, because the US definitely has an objectively worse player base than Germany and Russia.
Chinese players are better on average than major nations’ players. I have stated this several times.
Relikt is a primary problem of the vehicle any anyone who isn’t lying knows that. Relikt is known to ragdoll APFSDS and randomly eat absurd amounts of damage.
I have already stated this.
Minor Nation mains are better than major nation mains on average, which leads their lesser vehicles to perform better. You can see this at even lower BRs with copy-pasted vehicles where they have a tendency to outperform their original nation.
Source? I own them, and StatShark agrees with me. 1.3KD over 1.86 million games is good.
The upper front of the Abrams is better than the Leopard 2A7 because of autobounce mechanics and, while it has some armor gaps compared to the Leopard, it has other features which make it stand out, such as extra gun depression, a higher fire rate, a better power-to-weight ratio, anti-ERA ammunition, a high caliber MG, and other features.
This is a highly inappropriate comment for the forums. While I am undeniably not on their level, I’m still above average by a lot, and with 20,000 games, my opinion is more weighted than most.
The difference here is I was simply asking where a player with 2000 games overall had the confidence to suggest balance at top tier. It was not a jab at their character, but rather an observation that 2000 games isn’t enough to get an informed picture of 12.7 gameplay. What you’re doing is a jab at my character by calling me inferior.
Your player profile doesn’t tell me how many games you’ve played the 11.7 M1A1 in a 12.7 lineup.
You said you’d prefer it at 12.7 than a T-90M, but the native battle rating is 11.7, not 12.7. Not to mention that’s boring and limits your scope of played vehicles.
My KD isn’t that high because I’m stock grinding new tanks every day. I rarely play a tank for more than 150 games.
Alright.
It’s first hand experience, but as you just said, all of yours is in an 11.7 M1A1.
Which is raw acceleration and not their transmission performance, of which the BVM does accelerate better in certain areas on your chart still. Not to mention you’ve explicitly forgotten or intentionally skipped the detail that the BVM is significantly lighter, which aids in its cross-country mobility.
Your chart does not suggest it is slow on road in a straight line, nor that the BVM is slower than it. Raw acceleration only matters as much as the transmission and weight allow it to maintain it, which the BVM has the advantage there.
I stated it wasn’t critical for success, not that it wasn’t helpful. Do not put words in my mouth.
That’s why people agreed with me overwhelmingly, right? I linked the post, so people can see the “Mariana Trench” statements you claim they are.
The SEPv3 was not a weight-saving program; it did have weight savings in the program, but that was so they could allocate more armor to the MBT, which I explained to you with deductive reasoning.
Nope. I’m in direct contact with over a dozen SEPv3 crewmembers and some maintenance personnel. If you wish to argue it, please provide proof. If by some miracle there is a single SEPv3 with a non-LP crows, it’s the exception, not the rule.
Mhm Mhm.
5 Likes
Merkava Mk4 is rather survivable.
I’d argue more survivable than BVM, but survivability is not durability.
BVM has worse turret armor, but vastly better UFP armor; durability difference.
I’ve done that a large amount of times, and France does that constantly since their Leclerc has armor, ammo, and mobility “practically identical” to the M1A1.
Always love reading your perspectives, Baron.
1 Like