“Why use one Tiger II when there’s the other slightly better Tiger II? Why use one M26 when there’s a slightly better?”
You can use more than one tank in a match…
Where they heck do you see how long it’s been since a player played a specific vehicle? I can’t even find people’s vehicle stat cards AT ALL, let alone this detailed of information even for myself, lol
The vbc is better cqb as it it doesn’t get penned by 7.62 .50 side and can even withstand 20mm frontally while if you show your side to a Leo or any tank with a mg3a1 or any 7.62 it’s death for you the thermals help you scout better the laser would allow you to give ranges to team mates that are stock or don’t have laser the 25mm kba should be getting ahead rounds in the future the stabilizer is such a huge advantage as you won’t miss shots that would be a mobility kill I have countless times missed even though I shot where I was supposed to
Again, I would rather call it a sidegrade to the VBC than a downgrade, since it has advantages over it too and the new tech the VBC gets doesn’t make that much of a difference with a 25mm Oerlikon as main armament.
I’m shredding a couple 9.0-10.0 MBTs (russians included) every other match in the RCV, so I really can’t call it mid. It is an incredibly fun vehicle and much better for the shoot and scoot drivebys I like to do than the VBC.
Again, the missing stab is NOT a big disadvantage on a 560 rpm gun with really good vertical guidance speed. Sounds more like you have issues with aiming it.
the VBC may have more armor, but in a tank like that, you dont want to get shot at anyway, so it just sometimes helps when you messed up. I wouldn’t count that as a big upgrade.
Like I said, having the turret further up front, double the vertical targeting and a better turning radius makes it alot better for my playstyle, so I can’t see it as a downgrade, just a sidegrade. It is not the worst scout car by a mile lol. that’s probably the BTR since it has much lower fire rate, terrible gun handling for a scout car and way worse ammo against tanks with way better side armor and much fewer light tanks.
Are you seriously trying to compare it to the Type 16s that are entirely different vehicles? Weird.
The Type 89 has its own problems in comparison, such as worse mobility, the missiles don’t work half the time and just yeet into the ground, or a ready rack that takes ages to refill and empties quickly.
It is not accurate and depends on when someone last updates, just from Thunderskill.It can show plays since last the page was updated so if it hasn’t been updated for a long while you can see the difference in that timeframe when you update the player.
So it is not 100% accurate and can only do if the page on the player has not been updated in a long while. It justcso happens when I was looking at something that particular player had the page last updated in May, so I knew the plays from March (previous update) to May, and then the difference when re-updated.
Also about 20 plays in a vehicle that is a backbone at a certain earlish BR by a long term player of that nation sort of allows one to make a guess the experience hasn’t been for a while.
If you get .50 cal’ed in the RCV you already made a mistake. it’s a rat that suprises and shreds tanks from the side, and it can do so quicker than people can turn their roof mounted MG around.
The VBC’s side armor can’t withstand .50s either, and you probably have to show it to people if you want to get to their sides and rear, so if they react in time before they die, you’re just as dead as the RCV would be.
“Giving ranges to team mates” is SUCH a niche use, LMAO. Tell me the last time you sat in an Ozelot and ranged an enemy for your squad mate instead of them just lazing the target themselves. The thermals don’t matter much either since that’s not the ranges you’d play an RCV or even VBC at. On long range maps, both Japan and Italy have MUCH better vehicles to use first, second, third, and even fourth.
I never have trouble hitting my shots even without a stab, since I do it close range, and with the fire rate the engine gets toasted even with some wobble. You can mitigate the wobble with how you drive, too.
25mm autocannon tanks are rats that flank and shoot people’s sides and rear in close quarters, long range the ammo doesn’t have enough punch to go through most tanks anymore (plus long range you rarely ever get full side on shots, you won’t pen the front arc of an MBT anyway), so idk why everyone always argues about your performance standing infront of an MBT thats looking at you or sitting behind a hill looking at people 2km away. that’s not the right situation for the vehicle, if you end up there, you messed up, and the vehicle being a little more forgivable to these huge mistakes isn’t going to save you.
T26E5 T26E1-1, M26E1. Enough to drop out regular pershing
If it performs almost or as well, “The lineup was too full” is a horrendous reason to undertier it. The heck are you talking about?
The 8.7 USSR lineup is absolutely massively stacked to the gills with amazing things, for example, like 8 great tanks. Should we push 5 of them down in BR just “because the lineup is too full of good things”?
It worse than T-44 on 6.7 why it must be on same BR?
You have no idea if it’s worse than the T-44, we don’t have any reliable data on that (separate from the BRs themselves). Until/if someone wants to make a not-horrendous new working version of Thunderskill.
Meanwhile: why would Gaijin lie, anyway? They have no incentive to mislead you here. It’s not a premium, there’s no money to be made by lying, there’s no propaganda, it’s decades in the past, etc. The only obvious explanation is “Yeah it just actually does perform about as well”
M26E1 is a prem, plenty of people won’t have that. It isn’t even available to buy anymore.
T-62 has worse reload and no additional hull armor or ERA, T-55AMD1’s angled pen on its dart is much worse (please look at the 60° pen, the only unangled armor plates at this BR are side plates that are thin enough for 100mm pen autocannons to get through), both have worse gun handling and worse mobility than the ZTZ-88B/A, most other 9.0 MBTs don’t have TVD either (Leo 1A1, OF-40 Mk.2A, Chieftain Mk10, Type 74 E/F)
Tho I do think the T-69 II G is questionable, the ZTZ88s were definitely among the strongest 8.7 tanks lately.
So T34 as an better 6.7 vehicle
Its not lie, just balancer have bread instead of brain. Somehow Japanese chi-to have 4.7.
They are very clear that they balance on the performance of the vehicle (some blend of win rate, KD, points, cap points, etc). So if two vehicles are at 6.7 together, it means they are claiming the two vehicles are about roughly equally effective in game in actual outcomes.
So if you’re saying they are not equally effective in game, then you’re saying Gaijin is lying. So I asked you why they would? You had no answer, just a deflection.
Why are you fixed about lying? Gaijin placed is-6 on 7.7 . This is just complete idiotism.
YOU are the one claiming they’re lying in the first place. Why are YOU fixated on it? I simply asked you why you made a claim, lol. You didn’t have to make it (and continue to keep making it over and over in every comment of yours).
Any time you say any vehicle is not as effective as other tanks at its BR, you’re saying Gaijin is lying every time. Including the Chi-To example, the IS-6, anything.
I didn’t even say they were or weren’t lying, I just asked you WHY you think they are? Still waiting…
Because just compare chi to with sherman that was on 4.7 it better at everything, mobility armor stab, turret traverse, just japanese mains is super skilled making very good statustics and idiot in gaijin after seeing statustics placing iylt on 4.7. Newbie is trying to main japan. Surrender and chooseimg other nation or became super skilled too so chi to is uptiered.
I didn’t ask you to claim once again that they’re lying. I heard you the first time.
I asked you WHY they would put the sherman and the Chi-To in the same BR together, if indeed they perform completely differently from one another (and thus in total contradiction of how they claim to do BRs)
What is their MOTIVE for doing that according to you?
Because they looking only on some stats which is unreliable because of much different players. Almost no one choosing minors as firts nations so minor nation players more skilled than big three making minor vehicles look as fair opponents to main nations.