i dont understand hogy is this 11.0 have so good frontal armor from 500-600 vs apfsds good thermal, laser warning system, decent monility only bad reverse so good penetration thx for 3bm60 its a tank from 2004 with 3bm60 wich is from 2016… look at he leopard2 A4 wich is from 1980 but not have dm33 from 1987 but is capable to fire dm33 no?
1 Like
Wrong the Leopard 2A4 started production for the first wave of 2A4s in 1985 until 1987 but overall was built until 1992 according to Wikipedia
1 Like
Also retrofitting ammo works if they are the same gun? Look how some planes get aim-9b and then get better missiles later it says nowhere in the game that it’s the 1980 or 2004 version of the tank
1 Like
no bad gun depression?
6 Likes
The 2A4 lacks C-Tech hull armour, meaning jt’s a variant from the 80s, however since it has thermals it means it’s not an initial production variant
You can play around bad gun depression, not really around reverse speed
1 Like
i agree with you with RL tank, but this its WT, a game so realistic that you have 3 person view in realistic mode in a realistic game, speed and press C to look around behind a house its the best atribute that a tank can have in this game, why you think play AA and ligth tanks its so popular?, they should remove 3 person view from Realistic mode and then yes many tanks will need a Br overhaul.
1 Like
you know ground simulator exists
yes its from the 80s he said 1980 specifically the only tank that is from that year would be the 2A0
1 Like
The issue of vehicle and ammunition dates is complex, as it’s one of the methods developers use to balance the game, but from the perspective of the errors they don’t want to fix. For example, the Leopard 1A5 is from the 90s, so it should have the DM63, but since it’s in Br 9.3, it has the DM33. Despite being a small upgrade, the developers consider the DM63 on the Leopard 1 too much for 9.3, and they believe its armor isn’t sufficient for 9.7, while tanks like the Olifant Mk2 do have it in 9.3.
In my opinion, all tanks should use the ammunition they historically used, even if it’s from a similar period, such as the Shot Kal Dalet from 1984 and the M413 from 1985. It’s also worth mentioning that this would be a good opportunity to make many realistic and interesting changes. Besides these ammunition changes based on production dates, the armor of many Soviet MBTs could finally be corrected, following the accepted report that will be addressed in the next update. This report involves reducing the T-64A’s armor to its realistic effectiveness, which would allow for correcting all tanks and lowering the Battle Rating (BR) of those that suffered the greatest (realistic, of course) armor reduction.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YbGjjLaG5T0l
1 Like
so u opinion is t90A completle fine in 11.0? t90A added with leopar2A5 in same update only gaijin added dm53 fore leopard before have dm33 and now with dm53 is 12.3
I was not commenting aobut the BR placement I would actually say I feel like the T-90A is stupidly low and only reason sated is poor mobility
Not an opinion
It is factually okay at 11.0
The 2A4 you’re so desperate to compare it to is faster, vastly better gun handling with a faster reload and is a lower BR anyway.
T-90A was released in the same update as the 2A6 and did about as well as anyone with knowledge of the game would expect.
5 Likes
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.
1 Like
Russia should of made better tech
1 Like
Please use the search function on the forum, do not create duplicate threads.
thank you.