People don’t understand that if two shells penetrate the same amount at 60 degrees, but one shell has lower pen at 0 degrees - that actually means it will perform better at angles above 60 degrees.
Less pen flat can be “more” in some ways. Since it works like a linear function.
The Tiger and T-34-85 shells are perfect examples of this.
Chances are most tanks will just go through the T-54s armor at 8.0 anyway, so a T-44-100 with better mobility and much better turret traverse speed is the better pick anyway.
Of course the T-54 armor can be effective in downtiers but against the armor is really nothing special compared to 7.7 heavy tanks that are much stronger in downtiers.
If it wasn’t for APDS or HEAT-FS the T-54 couldn’t even touch them from the front.
Your previews are broken.
Type69 apfsds has no difficulty with any of those UFPs, but your preview shows otherwise. The marder especially is confusing since it shows 61 effective resistance vs 194 pen in the case of the apfsds. And clicking shows the round penetrating every time. Not only that, the previews show signficiantly better postpen for the apfsds in every case.
Finally, try an angle >60 degrees. Most of the chieftan mk3/5 UFP bounces the T54’s APDS where the Type69s apfsds goes through. The equivalent armor disparity is hilariously different.
The previews were done badly but they were quite correct, the chance to do damage with a direct shot is small at best for type 71.
Curiously this seems to be somewhat right, the APFSDS can’t penetrate a chieftain at range though. The game says chance of penetration is low but looking at the shell stats it’s simply impossible and shot simulation consistently shows 0 damage
Nah, decompress
There is almost no round IN THE GAME that regularly penetrates at 77-80 degrees. Thats what the ricoshet chance numbers are on every round. The initial screenshots were not at those angles. They are bugged.
500m you can pen the chieftan through the ufp with the APFSDS but not the APDS of the T54 (when you aren’t trying to look at it from 77+ degree angles… like damn near no one would). And thats just an example. A lot of other tanks are going to be generating >60 degree angles through horizontal angling which is where you start seeing a big difference.
But all of this is getting off topic. The Type 69 has a similar solid shot to the T54 but both have the option of HEAT rounds. Except the Type 69’s HEAT is better and the tank chassis has NONE of the disadvantages of the T54. Unless you REALLY want to use 240 pen APHE at 8.0, the Type 69 is an ENORMOUS amount better than the T54. Its like comparing a T95E1 with a Chieftan Mk5.
laughs in strv 103 haha angles go brr
That’s the kind of angle you get by simply shooting at the frontal plate of many vehicles, and why we might aim at something else if we don’t have something like an ATGM to punch through it.
The difference between the HEATFS is actually unnoticeable, but sure I guess the shell’s initial velocity is higher and penetration is 10mm better. Type 69’s main advantage is definitely the turret that makes it a great HEAT slinger, if 8.0~10.0 wasn’t the ultracompressed hellscape that it is, it could be put above T54s/Type 59 without any issues.
This is literally the only reason I ever bring Type 59 to 8.0, the russian APCBC is insanely good. This might change if APHE rounds are finally reworked
I haven’t played either. This is purely based off the stats of the things on the vehcles. That said, even though APDS has lackluster post pen, I think the fact that it penetrates better at any and every angle compared to the APFSDS of the Type 69 excuses the argument that the post-pen is better on the Type 69.
The Type 69 is also FULLY stabilised with a LRF. The APFSDS round is sufficient, and HEAT is there when you need it.
Yes, but there is little argument for the opinion that the APFSDS for the 69 is better than the -54’s APDS. I think the type 69 could be moved up if anything, but 219 MM of penetration actually does detriment the effectiveness of the 69 quite a bit, or at least I would assume so If fighting medium tanks that have around that amount of armor anyways. I don’t think the argument that the T32E1 should be at the same BR as the T-54 will ever stand up, leading to a kind of zone where there is nowhere to put it. The tanks at 7.7 are worse and, apparently, the tanks at 8.0 are better. Again, I hate to say it, but decompression is the solution.
I don’t think there has ever been an argument for the T32E1 ever staying at 7.7. Its been a point of contention since GF came out. But thats a different topic.
I also believe decompression is needed. There should be more single plane stabilised tanks to bridge the gaps too.
Fair but I could name many more that are 7.7 that don’t really compete with the T-54. Most of the M48s aren’t as good, the italian M47, possibly some of the swede 7.7, the sho’t. In conclusion, its hard to put it at both battle ratings either way in the pursuit of pleasing the playerbase but they refuse to decompress significantly anyways.
You can’t argue that ‘because there is a shitty tank at this BR, nothing that might be better can move into that BR’. Thats just bad faith. Because there are also better tanks at 7.7. The AMX50-120 is far better than the T54s. The STRV-81/Centurion 3/caern are better. Then lets look at the MOUNTAIN of vehicles at 8.0 that are better than T54s at 8.0 and its rather silly.
im arguing the point that decompression is heavily needed
People will literally ALWAYS be asking for ‘more decompression’. You saw it in beta. They split the game from 20 BRs to 30. Then people started complaining about compression nearly imediately. Its EXTREMELY unlikely to see a major decompression event, so asking for it repeatedly instead of BR adjustments is just going to get you neither.
I think some changes can be done.
For example starting with Israel you can find 8 MBT all armed with 105 guns with exception of Tiran-4 (basically a T-54) this can be moved to 7.7 without HEATFS.
In Sweden you can find a very powerful lineup in 8.0 so the T-54 can follow the same steps like Israel and move to 7.7 where is more necceseray since the last BRs update only you have two 7.7 tanks and one is premioun, so this addition is very welcome.
In Russian is less neccesary because have a good 7.7 lineup and early variant with stronger armor in 7.7. But possible too.
Another possible addition is add West Germany T-54 in 7.7. For Germany of course, due the lack of a proper lineup for Germany in 7.7 since the last BRs updates.
I think that just giving the bullets their actual damage and the tanks the bullets they historically used would be enough to make a decent balance, and add new tanks to fill the gaps of the tanks that would change their Br.
The Israeli tanks could be easily separated using as a reference the wars they had. For example, the tanks of the Six Day War such as the Magach 1 and 2, the Shot and the Tiran 4 between Br 7.3 and 7.7, taking away from the Tiran 4 the APDS and HEAT-FS since their best bullet at that time would be the APCBC. The tanks of the Yom Kippur War between Br 8.0 and 8.3, all those tanks carrying the HEAT-FS and the APDS M392, on the other hand the Tiran 4S It would carry the APDS L52 (M728) since it entered service after the war and before that Israel received few quantities of L52, so in the post-war they would have more quantities of that ammunition. The tanks of the Lebanon war as they are the Magach 3 ERA(Premium), the Magach 5, Magach 6R and B, and the shot kal gimel would go with the APDS-FS M111, having a Br of around 8.7 to 9.0.
It should be noted that what I am putting requires a real change in the damage of the bullets and its consequent rebalancing of many of the tanks of all nations, expanding the Br up to 14.0 and repositioning the tanks in Br further apart depending on a mix of effectiveness in combat and date of entry into service, all of this together with the use of the bullets they carried at the time.
