It is
Things like shells,engine and protection are all dependent on the year they were developed and issued. You picked China as an example,but it’s basically cherrypicking,let me do a list for you:
Abrams:between 1980 (M1) and the mid 90s (SEP V1) it received a new gun,new rounds,new FCS,CITV,new thermals,new armor (more Chobham+DU inserts in the turret) and more,all of this in just a decade
Leopard 2: between the Leo 2A4 and the 2A6 it received new armor,new shells,longer gun,new thermals,new FCS
T72: between the T-72A ant the T-72B3 there’s literally an abyss of new things,from the armor to the shells to the sensors to the introduction of more potent ERA
T80: even here,more rounds,better ERA, better FCS,better thermals,the list is long
Challenger 2: bigger engine,add-on armor,new shells,new gun (Challenger 3),new thermals and FCS
Type 90/Type 10: completely 2 new tanks,with the only thing in common being the gun and the autoloader. The Type 10 is better in every regard compared to the Type 90,even weight
Strv121/122: just like the Leo 2A4/2A6 but on steroids and without the longer gun
Merkava: the only thing that stayed the same between the Mk 1 and the Mk. 4M was the hull,and even on that there were several differences.
Even China had a form of technological advance,passing from a mostly Soviet doctrine (Type 59 and Type 69) to a mixed doctrine (ZTZ88) to an independent doctrine (ZTZ96/96A and the later ZTZ99)
So yeah,your example is completely wrong
Obviously,the american gimmick must be nerfed because it is obviously too strong but God forbid that russian aircrafts gets the Kh-38 and the Kh-29T that are outright illegal
“B-but you can carry a few of them” and?
Plus,you stated it above: missiles can be intercepted,so why bother at an ARH missile. They spam several missiles at you? Hide
