No. Skill problems, learn to play
I didn’t said it should go up in battle rating, was counterargumenting that there is tanks with two-axis stabilization lower than battle rating 8.3.
Well, T-55AM-1 and T-55AMD-1 have a great missle tho. Has beam riding guidance and good velocity while penning a shitton and having amazing post-pen. I literally run it as main ammo and use the APFSDS only for long range shots. You can even overpressure some vehicles with the missle, I can’t tell how many times I killed someone because they thought just poking out their roof was gonna save them.
Wow, okay way to be nice.
But if anything, yes, the downtiers to 7.7 are a bit unfair if anything, decompression is needed. And I’m pretty decent in it because 2kd would say so.
You can pretty easily one shot everything with 3BM25, BR-412D squeezed in viability when the T-55 reload ran over 8.5/9 seconds, it’s since been buffed and it’s slower but still competitive against L7 reloads
afaik 3BM8 is the round that shatters and that’s the stock round, hard to recommend using something else when they might not even have it unlocked yet.
I mean getting stock 3BM8 is still better than what a lot of tanks get to start with. I mean the M60A1 (AOS) is stock with APDS (granted it has better angle performance than 3BM8). Then you unlock Heat-FS and HESH, one of those is extremely inconsistent, and the other has been trash for years now. You get one of the widest ammo selections of any tank in game in the T-55A. Yeah you dont get APCBC right away. No one gets their best shells right away unless thats the only shell the tank has. Starting with a stock APDS round is much better than what other tanks get. I mean imagine some of the poor guys grinding stock APCR. Once again, the T-55A is a good vehicle.
M728 is one of the best APDS shells in the game, only beaten by L15A3 on the Chieftain (no the Conqueror’s is not good), both have the same modifiers that make them vastly better than M392A2/3BM8 etc. against sloped armour and almost immune to shattering.
I don’t think I’ve said otherwise, it’s a fine vehicle.
The truth isn’t always nice. These two have obviously overperformed for a long time.
Ok…but besides HEAT-FS and HESH, those are the only offensive shells the M60A1 AOS gets. M728 has superior angle penetration than 3BM8, its not like 3BM8 is useless for a stock shell though, it works perfectly fine I used it regularly against Heavy tanks last night and one or two shot most vehicles. You get a wide variety of shells in the T-55A, the M60A1 is stuck with an APDS shell and HEAT. In a 1v1 I’m putting my money on the T-55A coming out on top. The APHE it gets pens the huge turret ring, various soft spots on the turret face, and the giant cupola on the M60A1 AOS usually resulting in a onehit KO. If you’re stock, the 3BM8 goes through the same spots and can horribly mess up the target if it doesn’t oneshot them. Once again, placing the T-55A at 8.0 will mess up the entire ground balance for 7.0. 7.0 is effectively the new 6.7. Having a stabilized APHE and APFSDS slinger with near impenetrable armor (with anything that uses APCBC at 7.0, which is most tanks at the BR) would be a balancing shit show. T-54s rock at that BR already. Now give them a stabilzer, better ammo, and a faster turret traverse? Thats crazy. The T-55O is already kinda problematic, but i dont see anyone really play it thankfully, and thats because it doesnt get APFSDS, so no one wanted it. But its gross for an 8.0. All i can say is sitting here whining that the T-55A should be a lower BR doesn’t change the fact that at 8.3 (to the best of our knowledge) its 1.05 to 1 with its peers, and it wins exactly 50% of it’s matches. Thats peak balance. Will it struggle against some vehicles in specific situations? Yes, every tank has those problems. I recommend (this is genuinely meant as friendly advice), that if you know someone with decent to good stats in it, you watch them play it and compare what they do vs what you do. Hell, I could play it and stream it to you to show you what I do generally when I play. Its no skin off my nose. I recently started coaching people in my squadron in simulator to practice good playing habits for RB, i think I’m decent at explaining.
NO
theres the mk10 centurion at 8.0 with only APDS, having APFSDS at the same BR on a better armoured tank is unfair
That dart is just an APDS with a different skin.
1 Like
Funny to see the same thing on the forum that I have been saying for a long time about the T-55A dart. But yeah, people really don’t know how incredibly inconsistent it is with angles and how lackluster the post-pen is. The 115mm stock APFSDS is just miles much better in every single way. On the 100mm, I much rather use the missles of the later T-55s, they actually rip hard.
3bm25 is dogwater but now they finally have it a 9.0…now the thing is just 0.3 lower than a T-72a, so balanced! Ok fine, now move all the 8.7 centurions and m60s to 9.0 as well cause they’re no worse then a freaking T-55am, AMD and object 435, especially the latter at 9.0 is completely dumb.
These Br changes could be used to rename 3BM25 to 3BM20, giving 3BM25 real penetration for AMD and AM1.
3BM20
The 3UBM8 round entered service concurrently with the 3UBM7 round in 1972. It was developed under the same research topic as the 3BM15 projectile and as such, it had the same penetrator configuration but the whole projectile was scaled down to better suit the ballistic properties of the aging D-10 cannon. As mentioned before, the 3BM20 projectile shared many similarities with the 3BM19 projectile, most notably sharing the same sabot, stabilizer fin assembly and tracer. The propellant charge was also the same. The only difference was in the penetrator of the projectile. The 3BM20 projectile was externally similar to 3BM19, but it had a tungsten carbide core made from VN-8 carbide and an armour piercing cap in a configuration that was shared with the 3BM15 projectile for the 125mm D-81T gun. This is immediately obvious when the cross section of the tip of the projectile is inspected (shown below).
The tungsten carbide core was also of the same material as that of the 3BM15 projectile, differing only in dimensions. VN-8 indicates that it is a tungsten carbide with an 8% nickel binder.
The nature of the 3BM20 penetrator gave it far superior performance on sloped targets compared to the obsolete 3BM8 APDS round, but the much lower muzzle velocity of 3BM20 compared to 3BM15 meant that its performance was much lower relative to its bigger brother with all else being roughly equal. Case in point: the muzzle velocity of 3BM20 was only equal to the velocity of 3BM15 at 2.7 kilometers. The ordnance velocity of 3BM20, i.e its impact velocity at typical combat ranges of between 1.5 to 2.0 kilometers, was only 1,200 to 1,300 m/s.
The length of the 3BM20 projectile is 496mm which is close to the 508mm length of the 3BM2 projectile for the MT-12 towed anti-tank gun, but it is noticeably shorter than the 115mm 3BM6 projectile and the 125mm 3BM15 projectile, as shown in the photo below.
Muzzle Velocity: 1,430 m/s
Tungsten Penetrator Mass: 0.17 kg
Total Projectile Mass (incl. sabot): 4.58 kg
Projectile Mass: ~3.3 kg
Maximum Projectile Diameter: 38mm
Projectile Length: 496mm
Total Penetrator Length: 380mm
Maximum Penetrator Diameter: 38mm
Minimum Penetrator Diameter: 30mm
Core Material: VN-8 Tungsten carbide
Core Diameter: ~20mm
Based on publicly available sources, 3BM20 is reportedly rated to defeat 240mm of flat RHA plate at a distance of two kilometers. This is exactly the same performance as 3BM8 and it confirms that 3BM20 succeeded in its intended purpose of achieving a penetration power similar to 3BM8 while maximizing the conservation of tungsten, as 3BM20 uses only 170 grams of tungsten, which is only 5.7% of the amount used in the 3BM8.
3BM25 “Izomer”
The order for the modernization of anti-tank munitions for anti-tank guns of the 100mm to 125mm calibers was issued in 1972, and led to the creation of 3BM25 “Izomer” alongside 3BM21 "Zastup for the 115mm U-5TS tank gun, 3BM24 “Kalach” for the 100mm T-12 and MT-12 towed anti-tank guns and 3BM22 “Zakolka” for the 125mm D-81T tank gun. The three-piece sabot was carried over from the 3BM-19. This led to a range of APFSDS rounds built using the same technologies with a close resemblance to one another. In practice, most of the difference in armour-piercing performance comes from the difference in the muzzle velocities. Mass production of the 3UBM11 started in around 1975 or 1976, but it only formally entered service in 1978.
The internal construction of the “Izomer” projectile is identical to the other APFSDS rounds in the 100-125mm range of calibers. The tungsten carbide core is located at the tip of the projectile behind a VNZh-90 tungsten alloy armour-piercing cap. The remainder of the projectile is made from 35KhZNM tool steel. The 0.27 kg VN-8 tungsten carbide core is the same as the one used in 125mm APFSDS rounds, larger than the 0.17 kg core used in 3BM20. The cross section of the projectile shown below shows the large tungsten alloy armour piercing cap with its blunt tip.
In terms of length and diameter, the 3BM25 projectile appears to be very close to the 3BM20 projectile. However, it is known to be considerably heavier as implied by the larger weight of the complete projectile assembly. Based on the weight difference (5.02 kg as compared to 4.58 kg), the 3BM25 projectile has a weight of around 3.74 kg. Like its predecessor, the 3BM25 projectile has four stabilizer fins.
Muzzle velocity: 1,430 m/s
Total Mass: 20.7 kg
Total Projectile Mass (incl. sabot): 5.02 kg
Projectile Mass: ~3.74 kg
Total Length: 978mm
Core Material: VN-8 Tungsten carbide
Core Diameter: 20mm
Core Length: 71mm
Information from “Оружие России (2001-2002)”.