Well, not exactly. But if everyone is doing well in a certain vehicle, for example - the F8U-2, I think there is a legitimate reason to think it’s a good vehicle.
How do you judge that, vehicle performance is based on userbase, which is the thing Gaijin loves to ignore and why minor nations are so f’d.
Why else would you advocate for a .3 higher BR from the 2A4, or even the same BR?
Because I think that is where it should be, just like I think the 2A5 and 2A6 should be .3 below the 2A7 because the 2A7 is objectively a better vehicle in every metric.
Well, I’d prefer to talk about raw performance instead of player stats as much as you do. But I don’t know what to tell you. The Type 90 is better than the 2A4 in most cases, and is on the same level as the M1A1.
Comparing the 2A4 and Type 90 to the 2A7 and 2A6/2A5 is ridiculous. Of course the 2A7 is superior to the 2A6/2A5, and I completely agree with you on that.
You think it should be the same BR as the T-90A, for example?
The only benefits that the T-90 gets is a better round and better frontal protection (and the scope / thermals, if you’re so keen). Everything else is significantly worse.
Frontal protection is a lot when the enemy cannot pen you, pretty sure it matters for the M18 when it faces the Panther.
T-90A has 100mm more pen, 580 vs 480mm
T-90A has a tandem ATGM with 850mm of pen.
T-90A has an FOV of 28 degrees vs 8.
T-90A has gen 2 thermals vs gen 1 thermals.
Really don’t see it being that much of a problem to be at the same BR if the 2A5 is at the same BR of the 2A7.
Again, the M18 can easily flank, and should do it against the Panther.
Same goes for the Type 90.
If it does get into a situation where it is front-on with a T-90A, it still has better survivability than the T-90A, as you can sidescrape and get his track, thus letting you move even further away and snipe his ammunition.
The T-90A’s armour is only really useful if they are rushing you front-on (which the T-90A lacks mobility compared to the Type 90), or at very long ranges (as its round and frontal armour is very good for the BR).
And that’s all the advantages it gets.
Type 90 has a MUCH better reload (4s compared to 7.1s)
Type 90 has 30HP/TON compared to T-90A’s 21.5 HP/TON (effectively 40% greater acceleration).
Type 90 has a MUCH better reverse speed (34KM/H compared to 4.2KM/H), meaning that if the T-90A blunders a single shot, it will be massively punished.
Type 90 has a MUCH better vertical targeting speed (8.0 degrees per second compared to 2.8 degrees per second), and better horizontal targeting speed (26 degrees per second compared to 20 degrees per second).
Type 90 has blow out panels, which makes it much more survivable compared to the T-90A’s ammunition carousel.
Type 90 has 7 degrees of gun depression (which can be increased to around 11 degrees with the hydropneumatic suspension), whereas the T-90A only gets 4 degrees.
Need I say more?
Strawman argument. I never stated that the 2A5 should be the same BR as the 2A7. They should be different. You are only saying it’s fair because Gaijin made it so.
Right, so it has pros and cons, seems perfectly fine for them to be at the same BR, acceleration is nice but you’re not going to kill someone with acceleration.
Type 90 has better gun handling, and the T-90 has a better gun with vastly more pen, vastly more armor protection at the expense of the mobility the Type 90 has.
You haven’t played competitively enough to know how vital mobility is, along with all those things.
There’s a reason why most comp players choose the Leopard 2K over the T-64B, and why the 2K is now 10.0.
T-90 still goes 67km/h with the Type 90 going 73 km/h, it’s not like it’s a Maus, it’s perfectly capable to get around the map, it just accelerates a bit slower, the lack of depression and reverse are the only concern for it’s combat effectiveness.
In my test run the Type 90 took 55 seconds and the T-90 took 63 seconds over the same track, so about 15% slower.
Vehicles are limited by their acceleration and maximum speed.
Sure, it’s 15% on perfectly flat terrain, but in combat, it isn’t always about going in a straight line (where their maximum speed caps their separation distance).
T-90A has no neutral steering, nor the reverse speed, meaning that it takes longer to turn around.
No reverse speed means that you must turn the entire hull away from the front, which means that you are exposed to enemy fire.
The T-90A has to go around hills (to be safe) instead of using its gun depression (which the Type 90 can).
Maps may require you to climb hills, get off hills quickly, sidescrape tanks quickly and effectively, take pot shots etc…
The more mobile you are (and the better gun handling you have), the better you can do in all these aspects.
Your armour, with the Type 90, is your mobility, reload, and cover - along with the armour and survivability of pretty much an upgraded 2A4.
If you still don’t think they shouldn’t be the same BR as each other, I suggest 1v1ing with the T-90A, with my friend, who has a Type 90.
It’s not just flat terrain, it’s a straight road follow by a hill climb, 180 turn and a return off road of the same length, you might lose out to a Type 90 on a cap rush but you won’t be far behind.
The game also isn’t a 1v1, that’s an entirely different discipline than how the game is played, a Type 90 can utilize the map freely if there only is one enemy where in an actual match it cannot, it’s a lot more likely to get one shot by a plethora of targets as where the T-90 will be more survivable and more capable of killing targets with the very high pen and the tandem ATGM.
Having armor that is strong enough to stop shells is pretty important, beyond that no armor is best armor as GAijin clearly lacks the competence to make them work in a realistic manner.
