We need to talk about Russian high tier tanks

Game Discussion General Discussion
1

1. Fuel tanks absorb all spall but don’t produce any.

Russian tanks have a very nasty habit of stopping all spall after being penetrated. Meanwhile NATO tanks’ fuel tanks produce enough spall to kill 3 or more crew members. Is this incorrectly modeled? Well, no. See NATO tanks such as the Abrams for example have firewalls for internal fuel tanks. In real life these would help to protect crew against potential fires, however in war thunder they do nothing but produce massive amounts of spall despite only being around 20mm thick in the case of the Abrams. Additionally, fighting compartment fires in war thunder are not nearly as lethal as they should be. Since Russian tanks have no firewalls for their fuel tanks, they would likely rupture, spreading the likely ignited fuels all over the interior of the tank. To recap:

-NATO tanks suffer exaggerated consequences of fuel tank firewalls but none of the benefits

-Russian tanks are too survivable after a fire in the crew compartment

2. T-series tanks are too survivable.

Gaijin has modeled tanks like the T-72/T-80/T-90 in such a way that makes them very compartmentalized and resistant to spall. The biggest offender is the carousel autoloader found in these tanks. The auto loader helps to stop spall from reaching the crew our ammo. And after eating spall, the autoloader is often only mildly damaged. Furthermore, the autoloader produced almost no spall after being hit, further adding to this issue.

3. NATO tanks have overly fragile turret baskets models and T-series do not.

This is a bit more of an Abrams/Leo 2 cope problem than anything, but it’s still relevant. NATO tanks (especially the Abrmas and Leo 2) will often have weapon drives, turret baskets, hydraulic pump, and power electronics all modeled in addition to the actual turret ring. What do Russian tanks have? Just the turret ring.

Also, a bit unrelated but Abrams/Leo 2 having their turret baskets and hydraulic pump/power electronics modeled, but no other tank having it is total bullshit and gaijins way of artificially nerfing these vehicles.

4. T-series tanks have smaller, less lethal weak spots.

To be fair this does kind of just come down to tank design, but it is undeniable that NATO weak spots are much less survivable than Russian ones. Take the LFP on a T-72/T-80/T-90, shoot it and more often than not you will kill the driver, autoloader, and the engine. Problem is that they can now shoot back. If you shoot the LFP on the Abrams for example, with a shell as weak as DM33, you kill the driver, gunner, turret ring, engine, and severely injure or kill the commander and loader. The same is true for the driver’s port on a T-series tank, which mind you gets drastically more protection on the T-80 and T-90. You get the driver and after that is typically about 50/50 whether or not you kill a crew member in the turret. Shoot the turret ring on the Abrams and you kill everybody in the turret.

5. Addressing the terminator in the room.

Now most of these problems are with the hull and get reduced as you face more powerful rounds at higher BRs that produce a shitload of spall and just don’t care. Now imagine if you took the hull of a T-90M, the best Russian tank, slapped 2 BMP-2 guns that can fire APDS or anti air rounds, and also gave it ATGMs with 800mm of pen… and then you put it at 10.3.

To put into perspective how insane this is, another vehicle built on the hull of a top tier MBT with an autocannon and missiles is the NAMER, and that sits 11.3. A full BR higher. Yes I know it’s not apples to apples since it gets better APFSDS rounds and FF missiles, but still.

2

I need more coffee before dealing with this.

1 Like
3

1- This is identical on all tanks in the game.
NATO tanks do not produce spall and never have.

You even admit they don’t by mentioning that the Abrams armored steel produces spall, and not the fuel tank.

2- They pop off like fireworks.

3- Chally 2 doesn’t have a basket at all.
People voted for autoloaders/baskets, and that’s what we got. Gaijin listening to and implementing feedback.

4- Only the T-90M and T-72B. The rest are fairly large, especially in close quarters where you’re forced to show side armor.

5- Refer to the existing topics.

1 Like
4

That happens with most fuel tanks tho its not just a russia issue.

Fat yes. Carousel damage model is an absolute joke.

Yeah the selective implementation of internal modules like the basket is an absolute joke but to be fair that also doesnt just affect russian tanks positively everyone besides GER and US profits from that.

True but that is also their only real strenght

Hopefully that thing gets moved to its proper BR once Anton can buy himself a Yacht from the sales

5

  1. I’d argue to say that NATO or non-eastern designs tend to be more vulnerable when comes to fuel tank explosion, obviously for both sides fuel tanks will function as additional protection specially against chemical projectiles (e.g. any caliber HEAT, HE projectiles) and lower caliber kinetic-energy projectiles (e.g. 60mm APDS-FS projectiles), it’s funny that at some vehicles these fuel tanks works too well, I have moments where in a AMX-30 I was able to sustain and survive just because of a fuel tank.

  2. Just like any other similar vehicle at its respective battle rating: no. It’s not more too survivable than its direct counterparts, personally I had more fun in vehicles like AMX-30 Super where the versatility and firepower works around the lack of armor than the super survivable T-72A.

  3. Turret basket as the way is represented in-game is a direct counterpart to the autoloader, if you want more components in the turret other than the autoloader and the horizontal turret drive mechanism you’re also asking for equal counterpart for NATO vehicles, which personally I wouldn’t want to worsen the experience because someone with little experience in eastern designs is saying something merely on presumptions.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles

It may look like a joke but speaking things without knowing truth will lead people in false beliefs, I’m not stating that soviet vehicles are too weak or people are just dumb to not spare some time to learn about the vehicles they face (which I’ll put my bets on the latter).

  1. T-series of main battle tanks do have smaller weakspots when compared to NATO main battle tanks, their size ratio is comparable if not similar, obviously will be there exceptions but when speaking about the main characters like M1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4, I see as fair game.

  2. If you spare your time to watch a replay where a BMPT-72 gets a Nuke drop merely because of team imcopetence and poor knowledge on the vehicle they’re facing explains why I quoted Sun Tzu early, people will ignore the facts and credit a single vehicle of being overpowered, which this will lead to a battle rating change regardless if the vehicle is overpowered or the players itself can’t deal with it, at some point the same team had advantage on the map but the mere poor knowledge on a T-90M with autocannons, which share the same weakspots to the original platform lead to a defeat, it wasn’t two or more vehicles, one single BMPT-72 took advantage of this aspect, instead of looking at themselves people are pointing fingers at someone else.