That would be Ajax to 10.0, not 8.0.
If it’s under-performing at 10.3, it’s moved to 10.0 and checked again under this system that I currently have no take on.
Also not sure why you’re trying to refute BMPT being OP with that false equivalence.
and the BMPT is overperforming 10.7, everyone with half a brain cell can clearly see it should be 11.0/11.3
But Gaijin just doesnt want to do that because they know it will impact sales. Especially over Christmas.
3 Likes
@Morvran
Brother, there are more perspectives than just ours out there.
I haven’t finished my analysis of the armor improvement yet.
I want to know what the standard is for that before I cast an opinion.
I’ll have to look at heavies and mediums, make comparisons, form a data sheet for me personally to feel comfortable making a take on this situation beyond 11.0 is plausible.
11.3 onward would require proper cross-analysis as evidence for me.
I’m not going to let feelings dictate my beliefs.
1 Like
Its either an 11.7 or 12.7 MBT, neither MBT is that strong in terms of firepower for the BR anyway, so most of that BR comes from their mobility and protection.
The BMPT builds upon that survivability quite a bit with the far smaller and impossible to disable turret (At least ive yet to do it, even with multiple L27A1 hits)
There is no way that anything below 10.0 maybe, but probably more like 10.3 can realiably damage, let alone kill a BMPT and it has more than enough firepower without any buffs to fight 11.7 or higher vehicles. Giving it Dart rounds (which have not yet been confirmed as being historically accurate yet) would quite happily place it at 11.7/12.0
Dude… your post is implying Challenger Mk2 is 11.7 or 12.7 because the hull is shared with the Black Night, a take which I disagree with.
Please realize the implications.
It’s better to just say that it’s the most armored “IFV”, being up to 80% more armored than the Namer 30 in the front aspect than to make claims that can apply to other vehicles.
I have no objections to calling it OP, cause its probability is there.
I only have issues with claims that will imply Challenger Mk2, M1A1, and Ariete are all using 12.7 armor just because 12.7s exist with similar armor to them.
Its not the same hull…
Its like saying the T-80BVM has the same hull as the T-72A because they look visually similar.
But the BMPTs are LITERALLY those tanks with the turret removed and the remote autocanon installed in its place. its like taking a Challenger 2, removing the 120mm, sticking the Ajax turret on and slapping it at 10.3 because “balance” (though acutally, with how little protection the main hull on the CR2 provides that would probably be balanced :D )
Or its an IFV with top tier MBT armour
2 Likes
*T-90M
They all look the same to me
4 Likes
They pretty much are
The T-90M hull has the same exact composite at T-72B in-game [and likely IRL].
And the T-90M’s turret has 70% more armor than BMPT’s turret.
And while you may not like the Chally Mk2 and Black Night comparison, both had the same hull protection in-game at some point. Currently, I believe Chally Mk2’s bugged because I just checked and I’m getting 60mm of protection from the 200mm alleged composite array where it was around 500 a few months ago…
However, M1A1’s similar armor is at 12.7 with Leclerc, and you can claim that M1 Abrams at 10.7 has 12.7 armor if BMPT with less turret armor is claimed.
That’s the logical issue with the argument.
No issue with calling the BMPT OP, just an issue with the argument that implies many vehicles have armor of higher vehicles rather than the other way around.
Cause I have said many times that Chally 2 is just 10.3/10.7 armor at top BR, which you’d agree with me on.
And using the same standard, T-90M has 12.7 turret armor, with 10.3 hull armor [though the 10.3s I’m referencing here should be 10.7 IMO].
because its overperforming vs reality. by a LOT
2 Likes
they are.
1 Like
What is the protection from the front of T-64B supposed to be?
It really does remind me of the Flakpanzer 341 Coelian buff insanity months ago, except even worse, considering that it’s MUCH more survivable all around and also is accessible get and play on the fly with $$$.
so after 12+ years of experience developing ground forces and all the gathered statistics on balancing 1200+ ground vehicles Gaijin is yet again somehow surprised by a very obvious balancing problem that everyone saw coming from miles away and sooo many players correctly predicted (and warned about) after dev server testing
and the BR change is laughable … just for comparison, french E.B.R. 1954 went from 4.3 to 7.0 and it never ever had any noticeable impact on matchmaking, unlike the BMPT that completely ruined entire matchmaking around it
2 Likes
I’m glad the BMPT is 10.7, just so i can use it with Object292 and 2S6. Win-win for USSR players.
I literally said this - the BR will change but not what you guys will want, just like Flakpanzer.
I don’t understand the whining about increasing the T64’s armor if its best chance is against 11.0, and there are only five such tanks in the game, one of which is the Allied T90 and two more are Chinese ZTZ99. The only opponents left are the French MSC and the EBRS Jaguar.
However, the T64, with its ERA, won’t be able to handle the 8.7.
It will continue to perform the same against 9.0-10.7 tanks nothing has changed significantly.
it doesnt tho.
1 Like
People just complain to complain. I say this as someone who has played USSR more than other nations. T-64B going up? It’s fine. Will be good to see more people using the Sprut with its 3BM60, if anything.
1 Like