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?
Better ammunition, better armor, smaller weak points, laser warning, better overall mobility. Of course, we have the 4km reverse range and the best gun depression, but that comes with the vehicle’s design.
is this a T-90A issue or a Challenger Mk3 issue?
Is the developers issue.
You’re not really reading what I’m saying here. Is the T-90A too good or is the Challenger too bad?
I’d say it’s more of a flaw in the way the Battle Ratings (BR) are assigned, since the Challenger is inferior to the T-90A, but you couldn’t lower the Challenger’s BR either because you’d have to lower the BR of the tanks below it. What needs to be done is to change the BR of all the tanks, freeing up the BR slots and adding more vehicles to those slots.
1 Like
As I said before, penetrators values in-game isn’t accurate, so these will happen in-game while in real life most tanks are more vulnerable that people think.
In a while we’ll see “tell me how my M829A5+++++ didn’t penetrate T90M like a hot knife through butter” “gaijin hates ubrums”
You cracked me up with that Oobroms