its the A varinat waht is in 11.0 a toptier round no penetrate it in front? p ltell me…
The more common version in this forum is: ma Oobroms
1 Like
There are multiple models of ‘t90A’ that one could refer to, whether it is the ‘original’ T90 upgraded to 90A standard, which features the same armour as late T72B variants, or T90As with brand new turret design for which I believe also had redesigned composite, wait a moment let me find some sources.
It absolutely would irl, the “T” series are the worst tanks in the world, only Russian pipe dream armor 😂
Obviously would mate, because the ammo penetration power values in game are totally diferent from the real counterparts. The same would happen to any other western vehicle.
This are same dudes that complain for Turms in a leopard 123 that got rightfully raised to 10.7, problem is that Turms is still shit at 10.3, I didn’t buy it thankfully but I think it’s pretty evident, when you have -4km/h reverse and dog water armour you’re basically done, the T-64b is more useful than Turms at 10.3
Indeed, it just got moved because the wave of people complaining of “Russian Bias” in the forums, it’s kinda odd the fact T-64B still at 9.7 with better composite materials than the T-72AV (Turms-T).
I find it curious that a 2005 tank, using 2016 ammunition (T90A), only has 0.3 more BR than a 1991 tank using 1991 ammunition (Challenger 1 Mk3).
We get what we deserve.
Same reason the 1970s Concept 3 faces tanks from the 1940s and the mid 60s T-62 is 0.3 BR behind the mid-80s Chieftain Mk 10
swings and roundabouts
1 Like
mods please close this post
That’s what usually happens when devs use very early concepts from a prototype; in fact, be thankful the cannon wasn’t made of wood.
In this case, it’s the same thing that happens to many other tanks: compression.
It’s not really compression, service dates have little to do with BR
3BM60 is the only reason it’s even 11.0
A T-90 with 3BM42 exists in the British tree at 10.7
That’s right, the T-90A has a 0.3% higher Br rating because it has 123mm more penetration at 0° and 71mm more at 60° (3BM60 vs. 3BM42).While some tanks don’t have their historical bullet, like the Leopard 1A5 or the C2A1 Mexas, because otherwise they would be unbalanced by increasing their penetration from 9mm at 0° to 6mm at 60° (DM63 vs. DM33).
It’s clear the devs don’t use dates for balancing, but what they do—adding and removing bullets to balance—works out even worse than using dates. I honestly don’t know what data the devs use to balance the vehicles, but I’ve reached a point where I’d rather not know, because if it gets out, I might get really angry.
Another thing I find curious. The difference between the DM33 and the DM63 is around 9mm at 0º and 6mm at 60º. Is this slight improvement in penetration really normal?
puma have 0.7 + br vs normal puma because have 4 missile…
Are you aware the T90A should be railgunned from ufp to engine to out the back of the tank by DM53 straight through the ERA?
Why do years matter to you instead of performance?
Because although it doesn’t always happen, years of difference are linked to better performance.
Does it in this case?
Challenger 1 vs T-90A? Yes.
Why?