Type 90 to 11.7? Clinically insane take.
@Miragen already covered everything that can be covered.
2 Likes
Same can be said with the M1A1 abrams. The turret ring is a massive weakspot, allowing the enemy to often one-shot, if not, completely disable the Abrams. Having to go around with two crew (more of then than not) is also extremely frustrating. If the Zoom / FOV was improved, and the armour of the Type 90 were to be better, it would definitely go up in BR.
Same with if the Abrams had a smalller weakspot for the turret ring.
The fact of the matter is that the Type 90 is still one of the best tanks at 11.3, same with the M1A1. There is no doubt about it.
Your K/D for your Type 90 is 1.78, which is more than your Leopard 2A4’s, which is 1.53.
Although, the 2A4’s number of games played is much lower than your Fuji’s, and the 2A4 came unspaded whereas the Fuji was spaded. I don’t see how the Type 90 is underperforming, according to you.
My personal performance isn’t relevant for the discussion in the first place, and the 2A4 is indeed not spaded and played quite a while ago under different circumstances as well.
Also where exactly did I suggest it was underperforming? My argument was against the Type 90 going to 11.7 and the difficult to justify difference between the 2A4 and Type 90.
1 Like
Since when have we started basing BRs to peoples personal performance?
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.
Why else would you advocate for a .3 higher BR from the 2A4, or even the same BR?
Unless, you think it’s underperforming at its current BR.
The Type 90 should stay at its current BR. No higher, no lower.
Since Gaijin began.
But if you had read the messages above, you would realize that we were talking about raw performance of each of them to begin with.
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.
Not what we are discussing.
Do you understand that frontal protection isn’t everything? 😂
I mean, I thought you had some good points, but this isn’t it.
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.
1 Like
11.3 is very well justifiable. 11.7 is not though.
This is like one of those reddit comparison memes that shows all the advantages of tank A but conveniently leaves out all the advantages of tank B.
1 Like
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.
We already talked about those and that was the argument why it needs to be higher, these are the things the T-90A has over the Type 90.
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.
1 Like
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.