Im aware, however players tend to be more concerned with reverse speed when they start to take fire.
You sit at the back of the map and snipe thay reverse speed doesnt matter as much.
But when you are spawn camping and trying to abuse 3rd person peeking then yes fast reverse is more relevant.
Its just as important sniping to avoid counterfire
Rate of fire is very different from mobility.
Type 10 can be just as effective close as short range.
Its a choice to rush forward in a T-90/T-72 you could play more cautiously but players dont so they just state the T-72 and 90 are bad.
Sniping reverse speed is important, not when you are supporting your team though and the other team is dealing with multiple tanks infront of them.
You should play CR2 if you want to snipe its slow to reach the berm and to reverse back into cover
Its nothing to do with rushing forward. Holding any sight line, 10kph reverse speed is more powerful than 4 kph.
I play them pretty regularly, fun tanks
Dude thats how Russians play, they rush forward.
Fun tanks they are ok would you swap your CR2 for a T-80BVM?
Because it works against premium US/Germany players.
Any competent players can easily counter that kind of playstyle.
People do it because it works.
Sure, I like the mixup in style
Yes because Russian tanks are fast they are low profile enough and the maps give them just the perfect amount of cover to do so.
Anyway the T-72 and 90M with Arena will be good.
Not having a reverse speed isnt a huge deal breaker with the armour and protection these tanks will have
Nah, its just because the enemy have woeful situational awareness
Works all the same with tanks like the Leclerc and Type 10’s
I just explained why it does
Unless your idea of sniping is just sitting with your turret exposed constantly which is a very VERY bad idea.
They’ll be solid tanks, but still overall downgrades to the 11.7 T-80’s.
Publisher of the bug report ( me ) doesn’t use terms like nerf or buff , i want it to be historically accurate which it isn’t . Vertical +40 is incorrect , Arena-M offers full + 90 vertical coverage per multiple primary sources incl chief designer of the APS .
I am just hoping it’s not a premium lol we don’t need any more top tier prem Russian MBT’s.
I agree but they might end up making an early and late version of this vehicle since this is based off the 2023-version that was undergoing testing.
I don’t believe it makes much sense to introduce two separate versions of the T-72B3 with Arena-M solely based on differences in the ERA package. The most logical and consistent approach would be to implement the updated ERA configuration (obr.22/23/24) as a tier III or IV modification, much like how the UBH upgrade is handled on the existing T-72B3.
As I already noted in my report, the designation “T-72B3A” was only officially acknowledged by the Russian Ministry of Defense during Army Forum 2024. By that point, all vehicles under this label would have access to the newest ERA package revisions.
Therefore, introducing an early prototype of the T-72B3 with Arena-M without the updated ERA package does not make historical or technical sense. There’s no indication such a configuration was ever going to be fielded especialy given the Arena-M modification patent shows additional ERA package.
It’s not that I disagree with you, I’m just pointing out it’s something they might do. The reason being they might do it to keep several options available for future top tier vehicles. I’m not a fan of that idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I suppose we have to create another suggestion that they’ll never acknowledge.
Incorrectly implementing vehicles is ok, just create a suggestion.
Suggestions are for future vehicles, im reporting a historical issue on a vehicle already implemented in the game. In other worlds it’s a historical report not a suggestion .