Quicker reload
better gun handling,
Thermal,
much better Sights
M774 is not much worse than L23 (especially as spall on base L23 is very naff) (and DM33 is straight up better)
armour on chieftain bar the turret is extremely naff,
M60 is actually more nimble and can actually traverse its hull effectively (much needed for the maps we commonly see
the top speeds are effectively the same (0.3mph)
.50 cal which is always handy,
M60 is physically smaller and has a turret closer to the front, giving it an edge in the urban combat we commonly see)
all the chieftain 900 has is better turret armour and straight line acceleration, in other aspects its roughly equal/worse
They’re contemporaries,
Khalid, T-72A/M, KPZ-70, ZTZ-96 being all being quite a bit Better or equal in most categories
and 10.3 will bend it backwards, what less hope does 8.0 have of fighting a Chieftain 900 other than a XM803?
Blame Compression, not the Chieftain 900
besides, all 8.0 MBTs can still penetrate the basic Chieftain turret if you take not even a lot of time to aim, ESPECIALLY if it is HEAT. Their issue is being Unstabilised, which affects them fighting EVERYTHING not just Chieftain 900
First gen, which is effectively useless at a BR without night battles
Very subjective
And armour on the M60 is worse. Let alone the armour of essentially any other 9.0.
False, the M60A3 has 14.3 hp/tonne vs 16 for the 900
Are you forgetting the .50cal spotting rifle? Or perhaps don’t know the M60’s .50 is in a cupola with very limited traverse rate?
Again not true as we’ve seen. Not to mention acceleration and turret armour are some of the most significant performance metrics for an MBT particularly at that BR.
You’re never going to guess what I think about the BRs of these vehicles…
I’m blaming the Chieftain for perpetuating compression. If your argument is “oh no X vehicle can’t go up because of compression, too bad it will compress the BR below it” then I’d say there’s a pretty obvious flaw in your line of thinking.
If you take nothing else from this and want to keep yammering around in circles, listen to this: When Gaijin adds a vehicles on the edge of being overpowered for its BR, and the playerbase (that’s you) supports the BR being lower instead of higher, compression is not only allowed to continue but encouraged to exist. Complain about compression all you want but if you don’t fight it on the front of individual vehicles you are contributing to the problem.
its not crazy when you remember that you have a jaguar with Magic-2s in the same BR and the Su-25BM with R-73 at 10.7-11.0 soo… no its not crazy its fine.
The chieftain is not better than its contemporaries.
They are slower, have shit reload rates, mediocre gun handling at best, near useless armour, and to top it all off, at an extremely compressed br meaning they often fight things like the kpz 70 or t72.
The only chieftains that are competitive at their br are the ones with apfsds and rangefinder. And considering that the newest chieftain being added is essentially at worse Khalid with even worse survivability (one of the only things chieftains tend to have going for them) I would not be surprised if they needed some extreme decompression to be viable.
Whereas something like the m60 tts is still slow in some regards, they would otherwise be much more viable to play.
(and the 50 cal on the m60 actually works as a 50 cal and not a glorified 7.7mm)
@Smin1080p_WT
When can we expect the addition of spall liners for high tier Chinese vehicles? It’s been 2 years. When spall liners were added to select vehicles in December 2023, players expected the eventual addition of this module to all vehicles which had this technology in real life. Immediately following the release of the “Air Superiority” update, players researched and wrote several bug reports concerning the absence of spall liners on Chinese vehicles.
These reports, which confirm proper spall liners rather than weaker alternatives on Chinese tanks, were all accepted or considered for extra evidence soon after their posting. However, there has been no official statement on this issue since. Now that work is once again done on spall liners, could this topic be considered?
This issue is but a small number of the countless mistakes in the depiction of Chinese vehicles in War Thunder, yet none of these have been addressed. To Chinese players, accurate modelling of Chinese vehicles is much more important than any subtrees, copy and paste vehicles, or even new domestic vehicles in-game. Therefore, it is best to address these longstanding player concerns.
explain why, stabilised, and better traverse rates, with the same angles, it should be clear it has better handling
Still a Thermal, which while poor, does aid in spotting targets
7 - 8x vs 2.6 - 8x, same zoom for sniping, but much better zoom for the CQC we commonly see, this is not subjective (at 2.6x zoom it has 2.6x the FOV of the Chieftains minimum 7x zoom 11deg vs 29deg)
Most things can pen any other things regardless, Steel armour will only save you from a poorly aimed shots. Composite is the exception and neither have composite
read what i said, i never said straight line mobility, it is more nimble, it can traverse its hull in a pivot faster than a chieftain, giving it an edge in CQC that we see all too often
the .50 spotting rifle with only incendiary and no AP? the one with 1/2 the pen of a rifle calibre? and isn’t even present on Chieftain 900? That one?
you rarely need to move directly in a straight line, and with APFSDS + HEAT-FS at these BRs the armour will save you from little, where arguably the ERA of the TTS (US) helps it with HEAT-FS
You’re asking for Decompression as a whole, until decompression occurs the Chieftain is a 9.0 vehicle, not a 9.3
BR Compression works both ways, yes its a bitch
Chieftain Overpowered? Holy cope
Gaijin does with BR as they want, if it is actually OP it eventually go up, the only time play opinion matters is if it is marginal. Gaijin mostly isnt stupid
Current logic says, Chieftain Mk.10 same BR. More mobility, Less armour fair trade-off
My point is it’s closer to what were considered historical engagement ranges for those guns than before, so for Bofors and below it’s in the right direction. Because it’s being done by calibre ranges, it doesn’t have to be precise weapon by weapon.
Only the 52-90mm change could really be considered an over-nerf. 7,000m, what it was before, is pretty consistent with standard engagement ranges of post-WW2 76mm AA. The gun on the SKR-1, for instance, which annoys everybody in AI hands, had a real-life effective range of 6,000m, according again to Navweaps. So they may have gone a little “overboard” there… :)
Note also there’s quite a few AA-capable secondaries in the game greater than 90mm calibre… 4.5-in QF Mark IV and 100mm/47 OTO ranges aren’t changing, among others, looks like and they have in-game AI engagement ranges now >10km. Not complaining, just might want keep that in mind at the higher BRs where there’s those dual-capable secondaries (either AI botships or players who let their secondaries run themselves) to mess with you…
Do you know if we’re going to get a sight view for the Kornet launcher on the BTR 82AT? As it stands, it is so functionally useless that you might as well not bother as normalising with the cannon sight results in the missile hitting the dirt 8 times out of 10.
Gaijin, please update the RP gain for helicopter modifications. I got 3 kills with rockets, yet only 1300 RP researched towards the TOW modification, despite having premium and a RP multiplier. This is not acceptable at all
I was trying to submit suggestion to add “balance coefficient” to correct paper values of reloading time for in-game outsiders and to mediate reloading time of same weapons in different nations (like Minisini cannons in SU and Italian service).
But suggestion was rejected with an answer that it should be suggested only via BR changes threads. So RoF can still be changed from paper values for naval stuff, I don’t understand then, why it can’t be done for Littorio class.
I suggest to apply “balance coefficient = 0.8” to reloading time of RN Roma and RN Littorio for balance reasons (to make it competitive), if devs will see that ship has too good statistics there is also a space for br increase. Currently: Stock: 59.1 s; Top: 45,5 s; After balance coefficient applied: Stock: 47,3 s; Top: 36,4 s.
Other ships at the tier reloading time for comparison:
Hi. Problem of Littorio class in game are complex.
Firstly - high gun dispersion. 381/50 Ansaldo gun(with French 380/45) is the worst in terms of weapon spread weapon system in the game. And the difference compared to the weapons of other top BB colossal(2.5 times).
Second - reload.
Third - crew compartments outside citadel behind 70mm armor.
And last problem - taking damage to the shell and charges rooms after hit turret.
New training missions have been added using pre-configured vehicles with pre-installed weapons. These can be launched through Battles > Tutorial > Testing Weaponry and Equipment:
Guided bomb with satellite guidance
Guided bomb with satellite guidance and a targeting sight
Flares — for missiles without countermeasure protection
Flares — for missiles with countermeasure protection
Stalingrad — this location has been visually updated without significant changes to gameplay. The majority of used assets have been reworked or improved, including: all factory buildings and houses, piles of debris and coal, textures of the ground. Many objects that were previously untouched by the snow have been covered in snow. The appearance of the river has been improved. Areas with dry grass have been added. The minimap for ground vehicles has been updated.
Carpathians — the location has been visually reworked. All used assets have been replaced with new ones, including: rocks with slight changes in geometry, textures of the ground, models of the fortress, vegetation. The landscape has been improved and made more detailed. The minimap for ground vehicles has been updated.
ZTZ96, ZTZ96A, ZTZ99-II, ZTZ99-III, ZTZ99A, VT4, VT4A1, MBT2000, Al-Khalid — the gun trunnion is now shown in x-ray view.
F-16I Sufa — AIM-120B air-to-air missiles have been added.
Tu-1 — the BRAB armor-piercing bombs have been added.
SBD-3 — a bug that caused the gunpods to not be displayed in the X-ray view has been fixed. (Report).
Players can now change the appearance of a research nation to that of any operator (using their flag and name) whose vehicles are present in that nation and have been acquired by the player. You can also choose the display style for the research country: flag and name (default), flag only, or name only. Changing the appearance of a research country does not change anything regarding vehicle research mechanics or in-game nations; it only affects the appearance of the research nation. Only the national flags and corresponding names are available for selection. Changing the appearance of a research nation does not affect the display of the player’s vehicle nation to other players.
