U clearly arent knowledgable about the current state lol, german leopards are underpwrforming by quite a bit and worse then strv122s. The DM models busted because the armor plates arent placed right or still have to weak values. Thats why gajin promised a Leopard Damage Model rework.
I am not sayong here zhe 2a7v is bad. Many nations have it worse. But the 2a7v is underperforming by quite a bit as well and is lacking its d tech hull armor as one of many things as example
Chinese tanks are some of the least effectively armored - considering they have the largest, fake breech weakspot, and the most vulnerable LFPs that one shot the tank every time. Hell - just shooting the breech usually one shots them.
I would rather be in any Leopard 2, I would rather be in the Abrams, I would rather be in the Challenger 2, and I would rather be in the Merkava. When it comes to getting shot in a Chinese tank. Yet you seem to mention Chinese tanks in this post?
Even though the two most survivable, best tanks in the game with the best stats are currently the German Leopard 2A7 and the Swedish Strv122?
not to mention the Merkava doesn’t even have its proper armor. its a struggle bus they’ve acknowledged it doesn’t have its proper armor multiple times lol.
Same with russian tanks that are very similar to Chinese tanks.
Becouse russian game.
Seriusly, russian mbt use more modern shell than nato mbt on same br. More than nato could faced.
More realistic 3bm22 before 10.0 3bm42 11.0-11.3 3bm46-60 on top tier
And the Schützenpanzer Puma from 2015 (DOI) is the same BR as the T-72B from 1987. What is your point?
War Thunder doesn’t balance vehicles based on date of introduction, it balances based on a combination of vehicle performance and player statistics.
DM53 is still superior to 3BM-60, as are M829A2 and plenty of other NATO shells.
I also don’t think you’d be a fan of matchmaking based on service years, as you’d quickly realize that puts the T-54-I at around 6.7, the IS-6 at 6.0, the T-64A at 7.7 and the KV-1 at around 3.0.
Russian bias != balance
Lol. Puma not pen T-72B in front. That same.
And a 2S38 can’t pen a Leopard 2A4 from the front.
‘‘German bias’’
Except for the fact that the 2S38 can penetrate the UFP and LFP. You can hit both the driver, gunner, and commander in one shot if you are lucky. If not, and you only kill the gunner, you still have enough time to finish the job.
I guess it’s time for me to pull out the chart again:
If you use the armour analysis tool incorrectly, you’re going to come to false conclusions.
Next time you should zoom out as far as possible, and level the camera with the centre of the vehicle, not the centre of the gun. That way you get an accurate representation of what actually happens, like here:
I think you are forgeting that the angle from the camera is correct, the 2S38 is VERY tall meaning that being closer and having that angle is realisitc. Even then you can easily kill it from ~150m with APHE as long as the entire hull is exposed and you shoot enough, not like you have a chance to pen the turret in the first place.
Tell me you didn’t read the chart without telling me you didn’t read the chart.
I’ve explained to you how to use the tool correctly with the help of said chart, it also debunks the ‘‘But the vehicle is tall’’ -argument.
If you would rather double down on being ignorant and continue to mis-use the tool, that’s fine, but I’ll just ignore your comments from then on.
It doesnt though, the question was can 2S38 pen the 2A4. The awnser is yes, your chart doesnt prove anything outside that it wont work from >120m. It didnt disprove that 2S38 can pen the 2A4 so i dont get what your point is.
Sure, I can hit ammo racks, but I can also get the gunner, driver, and loader with ease. Your “chart” works in some circumstances, but not all, especially with tall vehicles that generally want to be close to tanks. I was well aware it was a favorable angle because I intended it to be a favorable angle.
Didn’t know Puma was an MBT.
DM53 is still superior to 3BM-60, as are M829A2 and plenty of other NATO shells.
What’s extra funny is that DM53 should be even better than it already is )))
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1aylCMFDKVtI
And yes, this report is based on actual tape measurements of DM53.
Didn’t know we were specifically talking about MBT’s?
I can just reference the fact that the T-64A (1968) is at the same BR as the 2006 Leopard MEXAS.
And to clarify: I don’t care about that stuff, I only care that vehicles of roughly equivalent performance are matched against eachother, regardless of service date.
I guess we weren’t.
Charge Bison is right
Move T-80U to Challenger 1 Mk.3s BR please, no reason for T-80U to be +1 higher with ammo from 1991 like L26. Shameful British Bias.
Also can we make 3BM15 the top round for the T-64A and drop it to 8.3? It would still be unfair since M735 is a more modern round, so I’d say 8.0 even.
What a stupid argument on years. Who cares about year it’s 2024. As long as year ≤2024 it fits
So he’s just talking about the specific ammo vehicles use.
Which is why I responded with:
But I repeat: I don’t care about historical load outs or matchups, and someone complaining about this is missing the forest for the trees.
He was talking about ammo used by MBTs. I’ve no idea why you brought up the Puma which isn’t even an MBT to begin with, unless I’m not aware of somethin and maybe it is an MBT, a severly undergunned one…
You could’ve brought up what, the M60 AMBT which is an MBT and has a more modern round than the T-72B and sits at the same BR as it, yet you chose the Puma…?
