I mean, there is a recent conflict we are not allowed to talk to much about. Which in fact proved everything we are stating.
Russian doctrine always was quantity over quality.
Its a joke how its still ongoing.
There is nice oictures of the hardest oarts being penetrated by western apfsds
Is that why the Kpz/MBT-70’s were stomping the T-64A upon release?
Or why the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2K were stomping the T-64B on release?
Or why the IPM1 was stomping the T-80B on release?
Or why the Leopard 2A5 was stomping the T-80U on release?
Or why the Leopard 2A6 was stomping the T-72B3/T-90A on release?
Or why the Strv 122 was superior to the T-80BVM on release?
Or why the Leopard 2A7V was stomping the T-90M’s on release (and to this day)?
Holy Skill Issue™ Batman.
to be fair, leopards do stompt T series tanks in reality.
Csnt say much abiut the ither examples
xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
reality is a other world with different strat.
it will not matter and stupid to think that something is bad when it never had a 1 v 1 real tank battle.
just like leo2a6 getting destroyed by only 1 drone. does it mean the tank is bad ? no
1 Like
Modern ones do, Cold War not so much.
T-64A > Leopard 1
T-72 Ural > Leopard A2
T-64B > Leopard 1A4
T-80B = Leopard 2A1
T-80BV = Leopard 2A4
T-80U =/> Leopard 2A4
Leopard 2A5 > T-90
Leopard 2A6 > T-90A
Leopard 2A7V > T-90M
tbh, viedos != reality. Most often, it takes multiple drones and multiple attempts to immobilize a tank, whether NATO or Soviet.
But generally, you’re right. First of all, it’s just a game that doesn’t take into philosophy behind a given tanks design. And that’s definitely different in NATO than in the Soviets xD
Strv 122B+ < T-90M/T-80BestVechicleMade < others
xD
Not exactly the most insightful comment, but I’m guessing you don’t agree with what I said.
The Kpz-70/MBT-70 were so vastly superior to the T-64A, that they quickly climbed to 70-80% winrates globally and Gaijin had to enforce a new rule which meant that the US and Germany could never end up on the same team. This was the only way they could achieve some form of balance for the non-German/US teams, where they just had to hope their teammates in the XYZ-70’s would carry them against the opposing XYZ-70’s.
This was one of the most imbalanced periods of time that top-tier had seen up to that point.
Are you implying the T-90M and T-80BVM are better vehicles than the Strv 122 in-game?
You’ve (presumably) learned the English language.
Use it.
1 Like
you are right in thinking about density of the target but remember that there is lateral forces involved in the penetration forces wich reduces real penetration, there is also gravity and other stuff like shearing wich also gets included in the equation, that’s why penetration its split in 2, LoS wich its the technically possible without any other factor and effective penetration wich is the one we use for calculations, it makes it physically more reallistic, RHAe wich its an equivalent has been discarded time before because its sloppy and its unreliable, in fact its been removed of current standard testing for even russia china and all nations
1 Like
Ofc I disagree
Damn, you could have told me this earlier, then I wouldn’t have played T-64A X years ago, I would have just played MBT-70.
Bruh, what does WR mean if not that a TEAM won? And I don’t remember it reaching 70%. And I absolutely don’t recall there being such a rule. Back then, there were more players willing to play on MBT/KPz than on Soviets. After all, we’re talking about three main nations in the game.
[…] it was more like the complete opposite. It was one of those moments in the game where the balance between the machines was maintained. You had a mobile NATO vs. the well-protected Soviets.
You had a T-64A with APFSDS vs MBT/KPz with HEAT and ATGMs.
Obvious mistake with the inequality sign. They should be reversed.
How to use language when some statements simply have no answer
NATO has IRL armament.
DM53 pens 664mm and 700mm at 2km.
M829A2 pens 690mm at 2km.
Ammo penetration is tested against 60 degree plates IRL.
1 Like
Never listen to people telling you the Abrams has good armor
3 Likes
Wdym, you survived 0.001s longer than a Leclerc or Ariete would’ve in that exact encounter that’s amazing protection))
Sure, RU MBTs are all but immune to most autocannons in the front and Leopard 2A7+Strv122 are capable of taking that fire on the chin without issue but they also suffer)))
You americans don’t know how good you have it with your 50mm thick turret ring and useless side ERA that actually reduces the protection provided))))
How dare you insinuate that the swedes or germans or russians ever suffer less than the USA bias machine((((( xaxaxaxa
1 Like
Tell me you didn’t play toptier back then without telling me you didn’t play toptier back then.
Even to this day you’ve got 0 matches in your Kpz-70, and I highly doubt you’ve played the MBT-70 back then because you could’ve achieved a 3-1 K/D and 70% winrate with blindfolds on, but your stats are nowhere near that.
Kpz-70/MBT-70 had APFSDS with 380mm of penetration.
1 Like
Not to mention that the atgm was quite busted at the time.
2 Likes
This post is very confusing, NATO had the best armored tank ingame already
Ariete C1 (impossible to kill with the war kit)
Sshh you cannot say that, it is strictly forbidden.
Russian bias doesn’t exist
Tell me you have no idea what you’re talking about without telling me
Another stat-analyzer xDDDDD
You could have had 10-1 and I’m going to bet without checking that your statistics are not even close. So ?
I love discussions about such things, when someone tells me some stories because HE did something, it means that everywhere and always it was, and will be like that xD
Today, yes.
Yeah, but still works, i loved it.
They had APFSDS from the start. You can find on youtube any 8 year old video with Kpz-70.
1 Like
It had apfsds from the start, and it was more powerful that it currently is as they nerfed it a while ago.
For reference this video was uploaded the 24th of September 2017, the tank was added in the new era update which was aired on the 18 th of September 2017.
1 Like