Tell me an 8.0 tank which is resistant to HEAT / HEAT-FS
That’s why they’re 8.3 and not 8.0
conq and is4 at 7.7.
Or are you saying 400 pen heatfs can pen those?
Because if that is what you are saying then the tiger 2 at 6.7 is penning the same turret area on a T54 as a leo is on the is4 but benefits from APHE being far more forgiving, especially on cupola shots. A Tiger 2 is not penning either conq or IS4. easily. And with the turret rotation of the T54 you really do have to play it like a WW2 heavy tank so i think its a very valid comparison.
I had forgotten the base M60 at 8.0. A trash tank with no lineup that no one wanted and no one will play. It also truly has no reason to be at 8.0 with the 8.0s of other nations being far, far supperior. At 7.7 it might actually have a lineup, but thats another thread.
At some point while playing War Thunder you’ll learn the performance of various ammunition its benefits / weaknesses.
I’m always amused by people like you acting like the guy running around with thousands of games and ‘the old guard’ tag is new to the game. Heatfs has come a LONG way from the cheat-fs era and is only a small step above APDS in functionality. APHE has always been king.
2 Likes
If you’ve played a long time then you should be very aware of HEAT-FS’s capabilities and its performance ingame.
currently spading/grinding with the finnish T-54, at 8.0 its a damn pain with its overall performance.
not like 8.0’s overall are in a bad place right now with the almost constant uptiers to 8.7/9.0 matches but things like the T-54’s and the M60 are especially bad because they dont have the performance or gun handling of something like a leopard for or AMX-30, the T-54 is just especially painful since it only gets 7.0°/s of turret rotation coupled with a very bouncy suspension.
how about some proper BR decompression gaijin?
and this time dont ignore a couple of vehicles and make them a new problem, do it properly.
how gaijin manages to implement a wider BR decompression and actually make things worse then before, its baffling.
1 Like
M60 and Leopard 1 have identical gun handling
nope, the leopard 1 has 4.2°/s vertical targeting and the M60 has 2.8°/s.
on top of that, the leopards suspension is better/softer, making the gun overall more stable on the move and stopping the tank not affect aiming as much.
on and of course the leopard gets 8.0-15.9x zoom while the M60 only gets 8.0x zoom for the gunner sight.
that is far from identical.
4 Likes
I never really got into post-war vehicles.
Unlike with WW2 vehicles, you are completely outclassed against higher BR vehicles and you can’t really on side shoting tanks with APHE that works well at any rank lower than V.
So it’s super painful to grind when you’re ammunition or vehicle performance is trash.
It’s just no fun and it takes forever to spade and unlock new vehicles anyway.
1 Like
as someone that has been playing a lot of what is now 8.0 up to what is now 9.7 over the past years, i can only tell you that it gets worse with every BR step.
which is why i stopped bothering past what was 9.3 in the past, what is now 9.7 but that BR isnt enjoyable either anymore because 10.0/10.3 is a black hole and the performance differences between these small BR steps is massive, especially but not exclusively if you play stock/unspaded vehicles of that BR range.
8.7/9.0 seems to enjoy a decent amount of downtiers nowadays too but its also compressed a lot and filled with vehicles that have fallen prone to the powercreep and gaijin mindlessly pumping out cold war vehicles with barely thinking about proper balancing anymore.
not to mention that the vast majority of the maps are way too small and corridored for these type of vehicles, with stabilizers, APFSDS, thermals and laser rangefinders.
1 Like
I regularly play the Panther D at 6.3 BR. So not a good analogy. However, I’m pretty sure it gets a decent APDS, and it’s facing tanks that are equal to it, the Strv 103 and 101, the Centureon, and the M60 family. (I assume this is the Russian T-54 you’re talking about, as the Chinese “Type”-54 is The same in a different way.) In conclusion, no, definitely fits there, probably better that it bullying WWII tanks.
1 Like
yeah not a good analogy at all since the performance gap between tanks gets much bigger the higher you go.
it gets APDS, pretty much every tank at 8.0 gets APDS(with only a few exceptions).
it does get average performing APDS, not vastly better APDS, while having much worse gun handling then everything you just listed, be it stabilized or not.
i am currently playing the finnish T-54, which is a T-54(1951), but it also applies to the soviet T-54(1951) and the 1949 version too, they are all outclassed even by the M60 and the M60 is another bad 8.0 tank itself.
but dont get me wrong, i am absolutely not arguing for these tanks to go lower, i am arguing for the overall BR’s in general above 8.0 being increased drastically so that 7.7/8.0’s dont fight stabilized tanks with APFSDS anymore, as that is like putting a Pz IV H/G against something like an IS-2 or T-44.
sure it can potentially kill those but it is nowhere near the same performance.
hope that analogy helps understand the performance gap between current 8.0’s and the 8.7/9.0 tanks they face a lot of the time.
1 Like
It depends. The leopard 1 is at 8.0 and also isnt stabilized. At the same time, the. T 54 47 shows how OP it can be at 7.7. having 6.7 downtiers, this thing absolutely demolish germains and amerimains. Same for a tank like the is 4. Is it a 7.7 tank? Probably not. But its so unable to be balanced. Same as a jumbo. Good armor, but terrible gun. The place where its at, is best for all parties involved.
There is now way to gratify putting such tanks lower.
Plus, if you want stabilizers, there is still the object 906. An 8.0 tank that is mad OP against the line ups it has to fight.
What you are basically complaining about here, is that a tank with armor, cant use that armor. You are russia, fighting nato. Your biggest threat, is a tank with 25mm of armor at most.
1 Like
I think it does this mostly by having better turret traverse then the other T-54s as well as having that frontal armor that chonkier than a Tiger IIs.
While the front of the turret can be penetrated by almost everything, it isn’t super easy and the side turret is still freaking stong against APHE. In fact the rounded turret of the 1949 and 51 are easier to penetrate from a side angle then the 1947s.
So you get a vehicle that can more quickly react to targets while being less vulnerable from being killed by someone that you didn’t see.
1 Like
Imo T-62 and the BMP-2 both are actually horrible vehicles, the better ones is the T-55AM and even the tech tree version has LRF to deal with long range targets, and you have the barrel shoot ATGM some more which is something easier to control than the ones on the BMP. I personally prefer 9.0 with the Object 279 and BMP-3 combo, rarely has to use more than two vehicles in most matches, the backup being the T-62M1 because scope zoom, I really cannot…
BMP-3 is brilliant with the Sodema sight, when played properly I can say it’s 10 times better than the BMP-2 and I am not even exaggerated.
Fight for decompression, I like you, most people aren’t as chill as that about this. Or just have a simple understanding of the game, and what it needs.
3 Likes
Not saying they are good. T62 has slow reload. But at least they have stab and it’s much more fun
the leopard 1 is also much better in gun handling and mobility then the T-54 1949/1951’s are, while the armor difference barely matters as well.
again, i dont think the T-54 1947 should face 6.7’s, that is why we need bigger BR decompression really, as the current 7.7-8.0/8.3 BR range is a complete mess.
the Obj 906 should really go to 8.3 at least because of its performance, but that is the other side of this topic.
gaijins inconsistency with BR balancing is only making things even worse.
i am stating how at 8.0, the T-54’s arent competitive, very similar to the M60 which isnt really fitting 8.0 either.
i am arguing that we need more BR decompression, so these unstabilized 8.0’s(and 7.7’s for that matter) dont have to fight fully stabilized tanks with APFSDS, of which many have thermals.
while at the same time, 7.7’s shouldnt be fighting 6.7’s and arguably shouldnt see many 7.0’s either, again because the performance gap between these tanks is so big it isnt really as balanced as 5.7’s fighting 6.7’s.
also i did not come here after playing the russian T-54 but the finnish one ;)
1 Like
Funny how my K/D is better in Type-59 (basically T-54) than in the 906
So were real T-54 turret traverse rates as awful as the game portrays them? It just seems odd how the supposed successor to the T-44 has that much worse turret traverse.