Germany would’ve benefitted the most from APHE changes.
I played through the UK solid shot tanks… you don’t even know
I do would love them to get BR changes. But for real, I have no problem handling NATO opponents cuz they’re modelled to equally die in most situations.
NATO MBTs are on average easier to kill, but their significant advantage in other factors is what makes them exceptionally strong.
2 Likes
I believe the key for Russia is more T-80 variants; ideally, 2020s BVM with improved protection and ERA coverage.
Most importantly; 3BM46 should become available for the T-80BVMs, so that they can take advantage of the 6 second reload even if it takes sacrificing some penetration power.
Maybe a 2020s T-90M with improved armor and reverse speed too; but the 7 second reload will always be an issue.
The T-90Ms could also receive 3BM59; I believe it penetrates like 9mm more than 3BM60; which isn’t a lot, but… still something!
T-14 could have really good hull armor and mobility, as well as penetration power; but still a 7 second reload, if not even slower.
2 Likes
You responded to the wrong user on the entirely wrong topic, Motu.
Your post is the only one in this entire topic that compares T-44 to Tiger II.
Not only did Panther respond to the wrong user, but he didn’t respond to anyone talking about Tiger 2s.
T-44 cannot easily take out Tiger 2s no matter what you say.
Your post is the only one here that contains “fair” in relation to those two vehicles.
@Panther2995
Your post responded to the wrong user as well.
Abrams turret ring and T-80B turret [seen at 10.7 and 12.7] are not small in the slightest.
If you think Abrams/T-80 turrets are tiny, that’s hilarious.
I’ve never taken my time aiming at the turret of T-80B, as nothing at top BR can bounce off that turret when I’m not failing to aim.
Talking about vehicle capability without context is not as helpful. Lets say you pulled a successful flank, Nato ones are just superior with the firepower. But at this stage of the game dev love cqc with small maps so russian tanks generally have advantages with smaller weakspot with the exception of a few hilly maps.
Like armor is just that important, or else we would think L2A6 would be at the top with L2A7. Even with STRV122 ppl saying its the top with L2A7 so in their natural opinion without DM53 doesnt change anything, its more about the armor + gun depression that leo gets
No I’m just using it as an example to show the minuscule weak spot you posted, these weakspot arent a great spot to hit with the enemy moving, while it can be penned when stationary (like T44 vs tiger), we dont play on top of server so generally not applicable
CQC is widely considered an advantage for RU MBTs, when it really isn’t.
RU MBTs lack these factors that are essential in cqc:
- Mobility
- Reaction time
- Reload speed
- Reverse speed
Weakspots are arguably easier to hit in cqc than at long range, but at mid range its the easiest.
Armor is important when you don’t sacrifice many essential factors to get it. 2A7 does not sacrifice anything beyond top speed.
Once again, you are responding to the wrong user.
I didn’t post any small weakspots in this topic.
I have exactly zero posts in this entire topic that contain small weakspots.
The only post I made this entire YEAR [We’re in March] that contain a small weakspot is on the Germany topic where I posted a screenshot of the Leopard 2A7V.
Also when an enemy is moving their side armor is to me and I just shoot that…
So yeah, go to the user that actually posted small weakspots, cause they aren’t me. Stop confusing them with me, cause it’s weird.
Mobility as in T90M yeah, but Id say bvm is good enough since it does have ok reverse. Also the reaction time (a few degrees of difference?) I wont consider since not evryone has 40 in top tier. Reload speed only matters if you failed a shot, but yeah
There is something important you need to understand that is explaining why people are complaining about the russian bias :
- Spikes/MMPs are broken (gotta love hitting commander MG 2 times in a row, a cannon then 6 ERAs eating the ATGM) ;
- NATO MBT armors being paper compared to reality and russian MBTs ingame ;
- NATO MBTs getting nerfed to the ground (turret basket and electronics everywhere now, except the Arietes I think. We’re still waiting for t-series basket, maybe in 8 years we don’t know) ;
- NATO MBTs not getting their best DART (Leos, Leclercs)
- T-series model are broken (ERAs and autoloaders eat DARTs ( Russian Bias in 2026? - #1603 by SnuggyNyx , unbelievable), ERAs eat ATGMs, the whole model eat bombs ( Stalinium armor? - #684 by TROOPER7 : what is THIS seriously ??!)
- LMURs top down approach are correctly modeled, as well as their damage model => AH-64E AGMs are completely BROKEN compared to these, you usually need 2-4 missiles to destroy MBTs/SPAAs/BMPTs
- BMPTs are broken, no need to develop here
- Pantsir-S1 currently best SACLOS SPAA in the game (12 ready-to-fire missiles, multi targeting system). Let’s not even talk about the next 12.7 Pantsir, this will end top tier experience pure and simple ;
- Tiger helicopters still at 12.7, why ? 8 FnF missiles VS 16 for other helis, 7-8 km max range VS 16/25 km max range for other helis, no IRCM, climb slower than other helis, HAC and UHT don’t even have a cannon ;
- 75% of small maps, advantaging russian MBTs because they rush you in corners
- To shoot at russian MBTs, gotta go pixelhunting. Urban debris on the ground ? Good luck shooting at LFP. The MBT does zigzags ? Good luck shooting at LFP. The MBT has bushes all over UFP ? Good luck shooting at driver’s port/breach (especially when you have the blur motion on, and that those bushes will “melt” with the tank’s armor in a blurry weird way). You shoot at russian MBTs from far away ? Good luck, gotta go pixel hunting. NATO MBTs in comparaison ? You point, click and shoot. Simple, easy.
- Russian MBTs don’t need to have the best pen, because NATO MBT armors are paper. They have basically the same speed going forward. They now have basically the same reload speed as well (6.4sec reload = +/- the 6sec reload some NATO MBTs have). They of course have so much armor that even top NATO darts can’t frontaly pen.
- IFVs : russians have IFVs with much higher fire rate, laser accuracy, 2 cannons (1 main for HE/ATGMs, 1 autocannon), much faster than some wheeled NATO IFVs. NATO IFVs in comparaison ? Bushmaster, completely garbage.
- Yak-9k, completely broken.
- Been playing some 7.3 US recently. Noticed something. Russian heavy/medium tanks, and some of their tank destroyer, are almost unpenable, IF YOU PLAY A NATO HEAVY TANK AGAINST THEM. IS-3 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that turret neck. IS-4M ? Same, but the spot is even tinier (gotta love bouncing on its side with a 224mm pen shell too). T-10M ? Don’t even think you can pen that. Object 268 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that driver’s port. T-54/55 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that tiny cupola, berely visible). Hell, even some of their T-34/44 will bounce if their turret is angled weirdly. NATO heavy/medium tanks in comparaison ? Multiple weakspots, side will not bounce against a shell (even against russian SPAAs lmao), if you turn your turret a little bit, you’re done.
- T-series MBTs have IRST + HE + Proxy HE + ATGM shells. Some NATO MBTs don’t even have any of that.
- Sweedish IFVs still don’t have IRST
So many more things could be said. NATO SPAAs don’t have cannons. Russia has literally 10 MBTS/IFVs they can use at top tier, worning out NATO forces because they don’t have as many => which leads to constant losses against Russia at top tier GRB. Russia has that 1 ship that doesn’t even exist. KH 38s don’t exist too as well. In the main trailer, it’s the russian MBT that wins against the Abrams. When the AH-64 launches missiles against the russian MBT, we can’t see if the tank exploded or not, because they cut the scene. A lot, lot more.
It’s all of these problems that lead NATO to constantly loose against Russia, especially at top tier. They’re just more advantaged than the rest of the nations. The bias is real, it’s not paranoia man.
1 Like
Thanks for proving my post correct.
The entire turret is not small…
I picked the thickest part for the penetration value because people would’ve claimed I was intentionally aiming for the weakest part.
If you have proof that Abrams weakspots are tiny, post the proof.
1 Like
-11 is not enough to properly retreat, which is relatively common in cqc. You hear multiple people rock up, and a NATO tank can reverse out of there at 30 km/h, reaching either teammates or a more defensive position.
Well, I meant this more for non BVM/90M/B3, but 90M and B3 do lag behind the likes of comparable NATO MBTs due to worse hull traverse, but its minimal.
Its not always a 1v1. If you kill one guy, and another pushes, something like Abrams gives them 2 less seconds to make their push.
Honestly can’t be asked to individually reply to each one of these with a counterpoint, but
OP Non-Russian Vehicles, some were, some still are, some on release, some after a significant buff:
PakPuma, XP-50, Aerfer Ariete, Sagittario 2, M4A3 105, M1 Abrams, AH-1Z, Leopard 2K, Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5, Leopard 2A6, Leopard 2A7V, Leopard 2AV, PT-16/T-14 Mod., Strv 122A, Type 90, Leclerc S1, German KV-1B, CW-21, TURM III, IPM1, M1A1, Coelian, HE 100, P-39N, J2M2, R3 T20, Mitsubishi T-2, EBR 1954, Gepard, XM246, ItPsV 90, ZA-35, Falcon, AMX-30 DCA, Harrier, SdKfz 140/1, F-14A, F-4E, XM800T, VIDAR, Kpz/MBT-70, Puma, T18E2, Schützenpanzer PUMA, Ki-44-II, T58, T20, M4A3E2 75 Jumbo, M4A3E2 76 Jumbo, Calliope, P-59, Conqueror, Centurion Mk.2, Centurion Mk.3, Tiger H1, Tiger E, Rafale C F3, Mirage 2000 CS5/CS4, Mirage 3C, F-15E/F-15I, CL-13B, JAS39A, FJ-4B VMF (Ground), F2G-1, P-51C, F4U-1, P-39N, F8F-1, P-51D-10, P-38L, F4U-4, P-51H, F-80C, F4U-4B, F-86Fs, F-18A, F-8U, LIM-5P, Spitfire LF MK.9, Sea Meteor, Typhoon Mk.1B, A7M2, Ki-84 Ko2, B7A2 Homare, F-5s, VL Pyörremyrsky, A-4E (Ground), Leo 1 L/44, G.91 (Ground), T14, Magach Hydra, Merkava Mk.3 (US), Merkava Mk.2 (US), Merkava Mk.1 (US), XM803, XM1 Chrysler, XM1 GM, IRIS-T SLM, M24DK, A-10A Early, A-10C, LVT M24, L-62 ANTI, B1 Ter, P40, Somua SM, A6M5 Ko, Tiger UHT, YAH-64, AH-64E, Z-10ME, Mi-28A (Sweden), G-Lynx, Merkava Mk.4M LIC, AH Mk.1 Apache, A-129 CBT/International, AH-60 (Israel), F-16A, AGS, T 80 U (Sweden), A-1H (Ground), Ho-Ri Production, TAM, TAM 2IP, FV4030/2 Shir 2, TTD, M4A1, M4, M4A2, CV 90105, A-6E TRAM, Strf 9040B, Strf 9040C, Strf 9040 BILL, Lvkv 9040C, Begleitpanzer 57, Ka-Chi, T29, M551 (76), Ru 251, VT1-2, Class 3 (P), Fox, OF-40 Mk.2, OF-40 (MTCA), Leopard 40/70, Lorraine 40t, AMX-40, Strv 103A/-0,
While all these points are valid, the first shot advantage plays a huge factor which generally snowballs into a number difference. Under the same skill level having smaller weakspot just meant a lesser reaction time, not to mention the turret baskets (usually disables engine too if shot from front)
It depends. In frontal engagement where both notice each other at the same time, RU vehicle has the advantage. But in most cases, NATO vehicles’ superior mobility and soft factors allow them to reach the advantageous positions first, giving them the advantage.
I would consider top tier tanks have really similar mobility with difference of a few seconds (except for challenger), Id say its a niche case that you actually holds a really good position before others
Man, what is this explanation
You know I’m right about all my points, it would take someone to be blind not to see all those advantages I stated against NATO
1 Like