So if the IPM1 and M1A1 Merkava mk.3 and a few other are being moved up why is the T-90A allowed to stay at 10.7 with 3BM60 and decent sights
What do you expect? it Russian tank it always under BR even the tanks are decent one
I totally agree. It is unfair no matter how you look at it !!
either remove 3bm60 or move it up
Just move it up, it doesn’t belong at 10.7 regardless
well looks like neither of those things are happening
It have worse mobility than most NATO 9.0 tanks, it have gun handling on par with most NATO 7.7 tanks, it have worse reload than most NAT tanks from 10.0 up, it have worse gun depression than most soviet tanks.
The real question is why IPM1, M1A1 and Merkava mk.3 are allowed to be lower BR than T-80BVM despite being much better.
The T-80BVM is unimaginable times better than the tanks you just listed. Are you Russian Bias main?
Let’s see, T-80BVM have worse mobility (lack of reverse speed and neutral steering remove ability to retreat and take advantage of some sniping spots), worse reload speed than M1 variants, worse turret protection (not only is vulnerable area bigger but since ERA is destroyed after being hit but base turret of T-80BVM is the same as on T-80B and much weaker than NATO tanks that actually have turret protection at all), worse gun depression (this have many consequences, low gun depression mean that soviet tanks need to expose their hulls in situations where NATO tanks can remain hulldown resulting in effectively expanding mantlet weakened area with driver hatch weakspot, it also means that soviet tanks can’t angle back they vulnerable turret roofs [already bigger and more dangerous weakness than on NATO tanks], in situations where NATO tanks need to expose their hull, soviet tanks would have already left cover completely), worse survivability. The only real advantage T-80BVM have over those tanks is first shot turret protection across strongest part of turret cheek and hull protection but ERA is destroyed, there are a lot of weak spots not covered by it and hull armour is much less valuable than turret armour or ability to hide the hull behind terrain.
The acceleration is crazy on the BVM the survivability is insane it survives shots to the ammo which it shouldt the weakspots are smaller the ERA on the side can just randomly swallow rounds whole
There is more to the game than pressing W.
Survivability is terrible, every penetrating shot is at best crippling and usually just kill. It does not survive shots to ammo anymore than NATO tanks and it suffer from fuel explosion. Claims of non exploding ammo on soviet vehicles is just confirmation bias. What happen is either hit cam error or rare case of hitting fuel, not igniting it and then dart going very close to ammo and not hitting it (fuel tanks don’t generate spalling, that is true on all vehicles, internal armour however do but armoured fuel tanks don’t explode and kill crew)
weakspot are not smaller, you have turret roof weakspot which even on T-80U with much better turret armour is much bigger than on NATO tanks and can’t be hidden, while since T-80BVM share turret with T-80B, weakspots are just larger.
Side ERA does not eat shots it shouldn’t anymore than NERA sideskirts on NATO tanks. Again, confirmation bias. It is however destroyed with single shot.
Gun depression,reverse speed,reload speed bla bla bla try something better for excuse for Russian tanks?
Their tank don’t even spall care to explain why?
Yeah, soviet tanks are inferior in all meta defining characteristics which make them worse.
They spall as well as any other tank but have extremely cramped and explosion prone interior so your very unreliable killcam may not show it when fuel or ammo explode or it may lie to you, it does that.
You may also suffer from inability to not hit fuel tanks (this is skill issue I’m afraid) and those don’t always explode so you don’t see spalling because fuel tanks don’t produce spalling while absorbing it (fuel tank absorb spalling from penetrating outer armour, is penetrated by projectile but don’t generate it’s own spalling).
I took a look at those, many times, conclusion is still the same, soviet vehicles are poor fit for game while NATO vehicles are much better suited for it’s environment.
11.3-11.7 5 MBTs that still outperform anything in soviet tree, ADATS for SPAA so still extremely good (and actually capable of defending itself from tanks) and does does face on average weaker opposition (since soviet and chinese CAS is much less capable).
AH Mk.1 is essentially Ka-52/Mi-28MN equivalent at lower BR with better CAS capability but worse AtA capability.
Tornado Gr.1 outperform all soviet CAS planes and Harrier GR.7 is still better CAS plane than anything in soviet tree in terms of pure AtG capability but suffer a bit in ability to deliver it’s weapons so about as good choice as MiG-27K but more capable in AtA role.
3 11.7 MBTs that outperform anything in soviet tree, ItO 90M is contender for second best AA so decent.
Tiger HAD is perfectly reasonable 11.0 CAS helicopter and fully usable at top tier, much better option for CAS role than any soviet helicopter below 11.7.
Mirage 2000D is better CAS plane than anything in soviet tree but even Jaguar A (10.3) is decent competitor for MiG-27K as CAS plane,
UK have straight up better ground lineup and better CAS, loosing to soviets only in SPAA.
France is very similar but they don’t have real top tier helicopter and less tanks to push in but 3 is enough.
Compare that to 4 MBTs that are usable in top tier in soviet tree (usable, not good) and represent very significant downgrade in critical capabilities with each backup slot after T-80BVM is down. One worthwhile CAS plane (MiG-27K) and two overtiered CAS helicopters (ground radar and 12 ATGMs is at most 11.3 material and that is only because ATGMs can be used for heli and drone hunting) that are also worse when it come to performing CAS. There is one good SPAA but you don’t make lineup around SPAA and all it does is make dealing with CAS less of pain.
I forget about Japan (Damn even i forget this)
Honestly, missed that he asked about that.
11.3-11.7 have 3 MBTs that still outperform soviet tanks in every aspect that matter, mobility, gun depression, reload, ammunition, lack of armour just mean that their advantage is lessened but they are still better, Centauro 120 is still at the very worst serious competitor in MBT role to best soviet tank, Freccia is top tier capable IFV with fire and forget top attack missile, VCC-80/30 and Dardo are also top tier IFVs with top attack missiles but those require guidance, they may not be as good as M3A3 Bradley but still more than enough for top tier. OTOMATIC is probably the best anti helicopter AA even if it’s not really enough to deal with top tier fixed wing CAS.
A129CBT is not top tier helicopter but is viable option.
Fixed wing CAS is strike Tornado, so better
So better ground lineup, worse AA, worse helicopters and better fixed wing CAS.
11.0-11.7 Four very good tanks that still outperform soviet ones despite actually having below average turret traverse but retain all other advantages of typical for NATO tanks, two of them with better ammunition (11.7 ones) and two with worse (11.0 ones), only non china tree with 11.0 tanks that do not completely outperform T-80BVM, effectively no top tier AA.
AH-64DJP is just 11.3 AH-64 at 10.7 for some reason.
For very top tier, F-16AJ is average CAS plane for it’s BR and is generally rather average in terms of top tier AtG armament but on excellent platform.
Better tanks, better CAS.
From 10.7 to 11.7 5 MBTs that straight up outperform the best soviet tree have to offer. Nothing else on the ground.
Helicopters have lower BR than their equivalents in soviet tree.
F-16 as top tier CAS, Kurnass 2000 is very capable CAS plane for it’s BR and even earilier Kurnass is more than adequate top tier CAS.
It’s basic ability to put readily available informations together, it’s easy if you are willing to put the effort in and not immediately jump to conclusion and basic understanding of game mechanic and in game environment.
Your play patterns and experience does not mean you are not wrong.
You take technical capabilities of the tank (so raw stats), environment it’ll be used in (maps, game objectives, game mechanics) and consider how they affect each other.
The answer is simpe set of qualities you need to consider when evaluating tank:
Mobility rule all, but mobility not who will win a drag race. Getting to good position early is valuable but so is ability to get out of dangerous position (here reverse speed is most important but so is neutral steering) as is ability to actually fit your tank into most advantegous position (mostly neutral steering but good reverse speed helps).
Gun depression is main aspect that dictate what positions you can use and how much risk you are taking in them, the better the depression the less risk you need to take outside of city environment, the more benefit you can get from terrain, the less your hull armour matter since you can keep it hidden.
Optics, field of view, good zoom, thermals Y/N, same importance for commander and gunner. Simply put how easy it is to see whatever you want to see. Quality of thermals isn’t really very important, you shoot the same no matter what, center of mass is most lethal, most reliable and usually easiest shot.
Gun handling, how fast can you put your gun on target. Most important for close range fighting, as range increase utility fall. For tank to tank comparison, ratio is more important than direct speed difference (5 degrees per second is much more when it’s 5 vs 10 than when it’s 35 vs 40). Turret of course beat no turret.
Firepower, there are three things to consider, accuracy (rangefinders go here), or is it easy to hit whatever you are aiming at, penetration, how hard it is to do damage and damage in this order. As ammunition grow faster, hitting becomes easier (barring some very inaccurate guns) so size of what is reasonably sized target decrease, higher penetration mean more possible targets so more is good but so long as you don’t need to hit unreasonably small or very awkwardly located weakspots it’s good. Rate of fire can cover for weaknesses or enhance strengths or introduce them.
Size, dictate where you can hide, how hard you are to spot and how hard you are to hit. It work by degrees and is context dependant, thermals make it less useful to avoid spotting, LRF make reduce value of being small target as does faster ammunition but smaller is generally better.
Protection, how hard you are to kill, this have two aspects, there is armour and then there is survivability. Protection is generally least important but as tresholds are crossed it’s importance change, some thresholds are immunity to rifle caliber MGs, 12.7mm MGs immunity, frontal immunity to autocannons.
For armour it’s function of what is protected, how exposed the protected part is, how strong the strong parts of armour are (relative to ammunition it face), how strong the weak parts are, how the weak parts are spread, how big weak parts are (and that itself is a function of actual physical size, optics available at BR around the vehicle, range finders and ammunition it face) and do you have other characteristics that can cover those weakspots. So obviously turret armour is much more important than hull armour, cince turret sit at the top of tank so it’s more exposed, value of hull armour decrease as gun depression improve since it can be hidden, single weakspot is more vulnerable than multiple weakspots spread around with same surface area, weakspots that sit close together are more vulnerable than weakspots that are separated from each other.
Survivability is just a measure of ability to survive penetrating hits and not be crippled by them, cramped interior, crew stacked together, ammo stacked close to the crew, lack of blowout panels is bad, empty space and safe ammo storage is good.
If you want simplified version.
Don’t be seen, don’t be acquired, don’t be hit, don’t be penetrated, don’t die, see, acquire, hit, penetrate, kill and final aspect, go where you need to be to do this and achieve objective.
Game simply favour high mobility, good firepower vehicles with good gun depression and great gun handling. Armour does not become very important deciding factor until effective frontal immunity to common ammunition/very few, dispersed, hard, hard to hit weakspots are available to common ammunition at BR is achieved, something that soviet tanks don’t have.
Do you have arguments instead of logical fallacies and data we know is bad (Thunderskill)?
Significantly better, just having thermal targeting pod is massive advantage and that’s before you factor in better AA missiles for self defence and ability to take them without sacrificing your AtG loadout.
And it’s still not very effective against pilots who have any idea what to do. It’s the only thing that keep soviet top tier from being eaten alive by enemy fixed wing CAS since there is significant lack of multirole planes. It’s good AA but it’s capabilities are greatly over exaggerated and it’s not really substitute for good tanks.
It absolutely is equivalent to them, just not 1 to 1, AH Mk.1 have better AtG capability but is less capable in AtA engagement. It have more ATGMs, more powerful ATGMs, ATGMs that do not simply reveal it’s position to anyone who can spot the missile, support equipement is equivalent (thermal sight, ground radar), it’s just less capable in air to air role meaning lesser ability to hunt other helicopters or to deter planes from going for gun kill.
Leclerc have good turret armour and all advantages that NATO tanks have, so mobility, gun depression, rate of fire, CITV, the same is true for Challengers. Ability to go hull down greatly reduce the relative weakness of hull armour (which will also benefit from angling). Ammunition wise, L27A1 have 9mm (18mm LOS) penetration at 10m and 1mm (2mm LOS) more at 2km, with base reload of 6,5s and OFL 120 F1 is 3mm and 1mm less respectively with reload of 6s.
This also bear repeating, mobility isn’t just pressing W, reverse speed is extremely important and so is ability to turn the tank in place.
it needs its hull armor fixed