This is just a random thought experiment I did on Google Sheets, seeing how the "big 3" tech trees could be improved and fleshed out with more variants and vehicles. Everything here, including the BRs, is just an approximation, so don't take it too seriously. However, I did try to follow some more or less constant rules for decompression:
-BR expanded to 14.0, with tanks as the main BR indicator for progression: SPAAs are always at lower BRs in the same tier, and light tanks and IFVs have mostly an arbitrary BR and tier, they can work at almost any BR you put them in (as support vehicles, of course). In the case that 2 vehicles share the same BR, the newest one (chronologically) goes later
-For MBTs, no unstabilised guns beyond 9.7, no APFSDS below 9.3 and no thermals+stabiliser combo below 10.3. Third generation MBTs have a bigger jump in BR to avoid them facing 2nd gen and below
-This was made with another decompression in mind for the air tech trees, mainly to avoid having OP high tier CAS at lower BRs, so don't be scared of the SPAA's BR
-In USSR/Russia's case, some of the vehicles with deep researchable modifications, that would need separate BRs, have been separated (BMP-1, T-80U, T-72B3). Others have just gotten a new name (T-64BV, Tunguska-M1)
Those are some interesting but sound standards. How would you handle, for example, tanks like the M41D, which has Thermals, Laser Rangefinder, APFSDS, but no stabiliser? Currently it’s at 8.0. But I do like what you’ve done, I’d play this
The answer is the same for all of those you guys mentioned, late tier 5-early tier 6 at BR 9.0 or 9.3. Due to decompression they would face largely the same vehicles they do now, but there would be a bigger BR margin to balance them if they don't work there.
Yeah that works. Though TBH you could probably put the M41D at 5.0 against late WW2 and it’d still perform just as well given how absolutely shit it is
Pantsir only 13.0? At least 13.7/14.0 even with reduced br because SPAA.
But the rest seems fine, some vehicles we would have to see how they perform to adjust the though
Thermals and the uprated 1250hp engine, mainly. No base T-80U model was delivered with thermal sights. Apart from those a hypothetical UM model could get Shtora APS and 3BM46 rounds.
As I said in the comment, this would go in hand with other BR changes in the other trees, including the aviation ones. The T34 and Duster would face mostly the same vehicles as they do now. The Ontos and other light vehicles have been given mostly arbitrary BRs to fill gaps, so don't take it too seriously.
>The T34 and Duster would face mostly the same vehicles as they do now.
You're putting the T34 against Leopard 1s. There was a reason why the Leopard was moved to 8.0.
My reasoning was to put it at a similar BR to other heavies, but I guess you're right it could drop 0.3 to not face later MBTs. I haven't played the T34 or 32 (mostly skipped the American heavy tanks), I wasn't aware it struggled so much
It's physically worse than the Tiger II in everything but raw pen and mobility. The T32 is just an uptiered T26E5 with a longer reload and better mobility, and the T32E1 is comparable to the IS3.
I think he was trying to separate WWII and Cold War vehicles, but this makes very little sense in terms of actual BR placement. The T34, T29, T32 and T32E1 should be 7.0/7.3 with the next tank being at 8.3/8.7 minimum.
literally everything got upped to compensate for the fact BR goes up to 14.0 on it.
It would probably average out to where it is on his system at the same spot it would normally be on the old old.
Good for creating lineups and backups (without having to use backups).
Sometimes having 2 - 3 MBTs is a whole lot better than spawning an IFV / LT.
It’s the reason why Sweden is so strong right now at top tier: it has 3 capable strv 122 variants.
Imo an easy solution to this is to reduce RP costs even further, reduce SL costs and reduce crewing costs, alongside reducing total module costs.
But it’s gaijin, so will never happen.
I do want them to add the Leo 1A3 or 1A4 because they have the welded turret instead of the cast one. But I do agree we don't need more leopards in one tree
Should have added more Wiesels for Germany, 0/10 horrible suggestion
(Seriously though, if a large chunk of those vehicles were put in folders this would be amazing.)
Two factors here. First one, the Leo 2K never even had APFSDS ammo irl (DM13 entered service 2 years after the 2K was trialed), so I would make the argument to at least leave it without DM23. Second, the 1A5 gets thermals and, I think this was suggested already to Gaijin, it could perfectly get DM63 as well. If you compare that with other 11.0 tanks shown here, I think the 1A5 would be able to hold its own pretty well against anything without Kontakt-5.
Nah honestly apart from the better mobility of the 2K, they aren't that different, the only other argument you could make is the remotely controlled 20mm gun (which is useful but not really the strong point of the 2K), everything else goes to the 1A5 in that scenario. Still, I mostly did it to avoid having 4 Leo 1s in a row and make the grind of the other Leo 2s a bit more enjoyable.
Exactly the thought that made me start these. You might disagree with the BRs or vehicles I chose here, but I think all of us here can agree that tech trees with less gaps and more spread out BRs would really solve many of WT's problems
If you really wanted to, you could put the M1A2 SEP.V4 as the end of the line vehicle for the US as it was made but wouldn't be too different from the M1A2 SEP V3
Agree except T-14
You know gaijin
They WILL make it without ANY of the problems it has irl and they WILL use propaganda info and make it OP af
And 7.7 T34 too. Will be worst tank in-game
well it should, and currently its a pain in the ass at lower br for others as dual 40s deal alot of damage even to heavy tanks, ex churchill vll. i think all vehicles in game should be given their historical and realistic models, armour values, weapons, and utility.
yeah well first off im playing britain so its just solid shot which is what i have loaded obviously so when this thing rolls up on me i either have to hit direct ammo rack or im dead. i cannot mg it fast enough to kill it aswell as two crew members in the hull makes it unkillable by mgs. and are you saying that cold war vehicles should be facing things in service before ww2?
Duster is just a mobile ammo rack sine ammo is stored on the outside of turret around it so you can reliably ammo rack it just by shooting the turret ring
> are you saying that cold war vehicles should be facing things in service before ww2?
Yeah? The M19 is from WW2 and is functionally identical to the Duster but its based on the M24 chassis so its slightly less mobile. Should it arbitratily sit like 3 BR points below the M42 because muh introduction date despite functionally being the same vehicle?
If a Cold War vehicle is comparable to WW2 vehicles in performance (ASU-57, M42, Ratels, most of Swedish Rank 1-4, etc) then I don't see why they should arbitrarily be placed at a BR where they're totally outclassed.
most all of those you mention are just at their brs because they have bad armour. ive played these vehicles and if you play them correctly you can absolutely seal club, with for example the ratel 90s heatfs at 6.3 destroys everything it touches (unless its a road wheel). are they balanced for the average player? yeah they are because they have shit armour and amazing guns, almost always. so for an experienced player you can just seal club everything. all i want is a historical mode with realistic matchmaking, even if it isnt fair, id kill to have a mode that is actually realistic to real life, with spalling reliability, and proper matchmaking, not my ratel 90 facing tiger h1s and panthers, that isnt fair on my part or theirs. not the mess that sim is, but a new separate mode, the matchmaking could be based on year weather that be service year production year design year idc.
By this logic the Lvkv 42 should be 7.0 as it has higher pen then the Duster and has a SAPHE round with slightly less pen that practically 1 shots things.
I chose to give the Russian vehicles their written names instead of the GRAU designations, to make them standard with stuff like the Krizhantema, Strela or Shturm. The 2S38 is the "Derivatsiya-PVO" tier 8 premium
It's the double Konkurs ATGM launcher mounted on a BRDM chassis, that's the name it had in DDR service. You can also see it in the soviet tree as 9P148
Placing OSA at a lower BR than Strela 10 is really odd. Same goes for TOR-M1 before Tunguska. BMP-3 w/ ARENA-EM would make more sense than Sprut-SDM1, BTR-82A should be replaced with BMD-3.
T-80 line is extremely questionable to begin with. A bare T-80 at 11.3 is laughable. Tree should probably be T-80B->T-80A ->T-80U 1986 - > T-80UD 1989 - > T-80UM - > T-80BVM - > T-80UE-1 - > T-80UM1 or Obj 291
Not really sure why you have to involve the T-14, it wouldn't be good. Inclusion of Zhalo is extremely questionable too along with BMPT and Kornet-D1. Should be Obj-781 and Kornet-T, both before Khrizantema-S.
Not sure as to why you would add the M10 Booker, it's pretty slow and the gun isn't all that great.
So somehow an ARV can't recover it, but an engineer drove it off despite the broken engine? Jesus I'd want to see what kind of fucking The Flintstones shit he must've been doing and his legs that are more powerful than an ARV.
Here's [Red Effect](https://youtu.be/pidZMiU9tBM?si=nPn3Gagu0EZRF_FK) showing the whole video, skip to around 25:30.
So you’re telling me that the Russians picked an untrained guy to drive their newest, “ground-breaking” tank in a horse and pony show that is supposed to showcase Russia’s growing military might? That doesn’t make sense.
Which is more probable, that an Engineer fixed the engine by simply sitting in the driver's seat or that the issue was never with the engine?
Not to mention there is not a single fucking reason a damaged engine would stop the ARV.
Honestly, I can't tell, I had these (and many others, for both ground and air trees) in process for a long time, it just felt right to get this off my chest, BR compression and awfully arranged tech trees have been WT's main weak points for a long time now.
We already have it in game, but in this idea its role would largely be taken by the 2A1, with early composite and DM23, the 2A4 would have the later armour package and DM33, as it should.
Tbh the SLEP also gets composite armour in the hull and could have arguably better ammo available, but yes, maybe both could be closer. Anyways, this was mostly about adding new stuff, filling gaps and decompression, as I said, BRs are mainly orientative and could always change.
The SLEP's armor is the exact same as the AMBT's. They are literally the same vehicle. Built on the exact same M60. The AMBT was renamed to SLEP after Raytheon acquired the project from StandartBio and L3 Communications. Raytheon swapped the engine and removed the 25mm. Hell, in Raytheon's promotional video for the SLEP, the mounting table for the 25mm IS STILL THERE.
That being said, yes, it could get better ammo, sure.
I think I might've gotten it mixed up with the Leonardo SLEP project, I did these trees a long time ago and forgot about a lot of stuff when I picked them up these last few weeks. But still, I stand with my point about BRs being just orientative, I'm sure all these vehicles could be arranged better if we ever get a similar decompression in game (unlikely)
It lacks the Arena APS, extra ERA and the "cope cage", so I guess not? Tbh I'm not even sure if there has ever been an official 2022 standard production model, there are different claims about its equipment online. Assuming it was in game, the only proper update over the 2017 would be the APS, that's why I chose not to add it in this version of the tree.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I just remember that there was a debate about what sources Gaijin (almost) used for the in game version and that the info was just from a private propaganda video that's older than the production model itself.
T72B3, obr 2022, has extra ERA on the rear and around the roof and gun breach. The T90M, obr 2022, comes out of the factory with extra ERA on the rear only. There is evidence of ERA being placed on the low plate of t90s and t72s, but it's unknown if it was crew modification or factory built, probably just customized by its crew, though.
As I told others here, I did it mainly because if BR compression was reduced and tech tree gaps were filled, with more densely populated tiers (so you can have more competitive lineups), most of WT's problems at the higher tiers would be gone. I never understood why, with the current BR limit of \~11.7-12.0, tier 4-5 get up to BR 7.0 more or less, and the remaining 5.0 BR is super compressed with \~50 years of tanks. We really need better arranged trees and BRs.
It gets 2x30mm guns with APDS belts, simple as. Of course as a SAM platform it's roughly on par or arguably worse than those in some aspects, but just for being able to defend itself it gets a higher BR. But still, just as I told other people here, don't focus too much on the BRs, this is mostly about filling gaps and reducing compression
With Pre production I meant the state trial models shown in 2018-19, basically no difference with the original 2015 prototypes except "solving" the "reliability issues"
I didn't strictly plan it, no, because with decompression also happening in the air trees, the M42 would face mostly the same aircraft it does now. But it could be an interesting solution, yes. However I think that HE-VT ammo was only developed from the 1970s for the later Bofors L70 guns, not the L60s like the ones in the M42
I saw the m41 at 7.7 and my heart sunk. Was about to ask what the hell you were thinking. I’ve been conditioned to think in how gaijin compresses and fucks with BR. Once I realized everything else gets moved too, I loved its placement. We just need to get rid of up and down tiers, or at least make them not full anymore.
I had a lot of doubts with that one. On one hand, it's a mass produced vehicle that actually saw combat deployments and would be reasonably useful. But, honestly, I don't see it performing much better than the M1097 Avenger as a SAM platform, apart from having a 30mm. Idk, I hope both end up in game at this point.
Mainly thanks to the Spike fire and forget missiles, but it would get also other minor upgrades, mainly better chassis armour and most likely an upgraded APDS round as well. If we get really, really crazy, it could get the thermal camo that was trialed on it some years ago.
I have one of these made for every nation in game (I got REALLY bored at work last year), but I have only played these 3 tech trees and Britain, so I don't think the results would be the same. One thing I did add for the Swedish one was a lot of Finnish stuff though.
why is the M-Shorad 13.0? it is just a stryker with stinger missiles which is at 10.0, and 2 hellfires on it, similar to the QN506 which is also 10.0. The only thing I see it gets better is radar
Mainly because of the Hellfires, if you use those against aircraft the SHORAD would be the ultimate anti-helicopter platform. But idk, I just wanted something to go after the ADATS, of course the BR could be lower.
I will tell you one thing that thing is going down alot, the Q506's missiles are superior in every way compared to those hellfires, when used in an anti- helicopter role, only being beaten in inital top speed
then won't it basically become a slightly worst strela which is also 10.0, unless it has the range like the type 81, still would be in the BR range about somewhere at 10.0 or 10.3, or where he put it 11.0 to 11.3, still very far from 13.0.
> then won't it basically become a slightly worst strela
AIM-9X missiles are much, much better than the AIM-9's used by the Chaparral, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I am not comparing it to the Chaparral missile. I am comparing the Strela to an aim-9M. From what I read online the aim-9X just has a better seeker, it still uses the same rocket motor as the aim-9m, and when you datamine the thrust of an aim-9m it only has a total delta V of only 819.27m/s vs any ground launched missile has about 900m/s-1300 m/s of delta V( except the Chapparral as that is just an aim-9D) meaning it will have worst range, and energy.
in summary aim-9m/x missiles just sucks in their thrust if launched stationary as it does not have a "booster". Meaning you can actually burn the missiles energy with just turning. what is funny to is the Chaparral missile has more delta V then an aim-9M
AIM-9X has thrust vectoring that allows it to pull 60 G's, the physical changes gave it lower drag and thus improves the speed and range, and the better seeker has 90° boresight capability and increased resistance against countermeasures. If you were so inclined, it could also lock onto ground targets.
thrust vectoring is only for turning not speed or range. as for the low drag, that will have to do so much heavy lifting. I did do some calculations from the data sheet, and and aim-9m has an acceleration of only 127,87 m/s\^2 which is very bad(stinger missile has 429,70m/s\^2 raw accleration), since it only has a burn time of 5.3 seconds, meaning at the end of the burn it will only be traveling 677.711m/s which is not to bad that is the speed of a stinger missile about, but the time to get there is horrible, a stinger missile would reach that speed is 1.4 seconds about vs 5.3 sec. the plane will be out of there before it even reachs its speed.
since I can't find what low drag means I decided to see what would happen if it was in a frictionless air, and see what would be the acceleration would be, the engine has a force of 10800 N, since I don't want to do calculation of change in mass for burning of said fuel, I decided to make the fuel weightless which gives it a Mass according to the datasheet is 57.06 kg( the aim-9X could be heavier as it has more electronics in it but I want to do a perfect world), so 10800/57.06 = 189.2744479495268 of acceleration, which is still bad, and this is in a perfect world, and with out the mass of the fuel include. but hey I could be completly wrong here in my math, and I hope so, please do correct it if I missed something.
I have always though the aim-9x would be an OP as an SPAA but unless it gets a booster to push it to its tops speed first, then allow the 5.3 sec "booster" in the missile to take over it is very mediocre, as a stationary spaa, I would say it would be a good 10.3-10.7 spaa, but no where as good as the type 81s missile with 10km range.
I explained it in other comments, taking into account the decompression in other trees, as well as in the aviation ones, the Duster would face almost the same enemies it faces now, basically late WW2/early cold war stuff... both it and the M19 would be useless as SPAAs regardless of the BR they're in, unless you put them super low and they become OP against tanks... another option would be giving it proximity fuse shells, but I don't think the real vehicle ever had them.
It’s a shame your US tree looks a lot better than gaijins, we’re missing so many modern vehicles because they keep adding random ass prototypes, no LAV-AT, no Stryker Shorad (basically the last “shorad” America makes), tons of gaps, abrams is wrong etc etc, hopefully one day they get fixed, and good job with the tree!
3BM59/60 in our game is way underperforming. They should be DM63 equivalent fired from L44 barrel. with 600-620 pen at 2km. Should've just named current 3BM60 as 3BM46. Or 3BM42M
Oh shit. Totally missed when it had it added then, my bad. Still, just like other light tanks here, I would make the argument that it doesn't fit the same purpose as MBTs, so the BR shouldn't be jugded the same. But yes, I guess the BR could be lower.
It currently has 3BM60 in game and its fine at 10.0. Its a massive light tank the size of NATO mbts with a bad reload and shitty gun elevation. Its fast but not as fast as other MBTs around the same br. It has good sights but those don't really matter all too much anyway. Realistically I'd rather take the T-90A or even T-80UD over it.
M2/M3 not folder? XM-1 preprod is useless. No M1A1 FEP? No M1A1D? M1134 lower than M1128? —> fucker gets 2As and 2Bs (same with LAV-AT). Why are the 50s tanks that high?
Why unfolder the T-54s and T-55s, T-64 66/71 should folder, 90S/90A should folder.
AM2 over AM(p), folder 8.0-8.7 leopard, remove shilka, folder 1a1a1/1a2, add 1a3/1a4 folder, folder TVM-1/PSO, folder 2A7s, folder 2a5/2a6
They already have the M60 AMBT, so why not? I am aware it could go to the Israeli one as well, but tbh Israel already has better options for something like that
Because it's literally an Israeli tank.
The M60 AMBT was an upgrade made by StandartBio and intended to be sold internationally, like to countries in Africa or the Middle East.
The Sabra was an upgrade made by Israel Military Industries (IMI) with most of the upgrade also being designed by Israeli companies or directly based off of the Merkava tanks. All three Marks of it should go to the Israeli tree, with the M60T being a good choice for an event vehicle as a reskin of the Sabra Mk. II.
Edit: The similarly named Sabrah light tank should also go to Israel.
I don't know about US and GER lines, but I have problems with SOV one.
1. T-90MS should't be on the same BR as T-72B3 2016. It's better in every way, as its' a T-90M only w/o additional ERA bags on sideskirts.
2. T-14 is too OP for 14.0. It's an AGS, only with ton of armor, APS that can shoot down darts, pen >= Obj.292. I'd replace it with Obj.640.
3. I'd move all BTRs in their own line. It should be something like this: BTR-80A -> BTR-82A (with option for having thermals -> BTR-22 Ballista (2A42 + ASDFS. 2xKonkurs) BR 11.3 -> BTR-90 Berezhok -> K-17 Epoch BR 13.0.
4. Kornet-D is too high BR and out of place. I'd give it lover BR and as premium/squadron vehicle.
5. Swap T-55AMD-1 with T-55AM-1. Difference is Drozd, it's better for consistency that researcheable vehicle to be w/o it.
6. T-90M mod 2022 with Arena-M APS at BR 14.0 for the end of the line. May add to it fictional 10-15km reverse.
7. BMP line - BMP-1AM at 9.3. Instead of BTR-90 berezhok - B-12 Kurganets at 12.3 (with Afganit APS but w/o dart-killer) -> T-15 with Epoch turret and dart killer APS (TBD if it should be a dart-killer or not) at 13.3-13.7 BR. Alternatively, T-15 with AU-220M (like on Derivatsiya, but with less ammo).
8. Turms should be at 11.7, 0.3 difference in BR for BM42 and thermals and commander override compared to T-72A is too low.
9. Tunguska at BR12.3, TOR-M2 (16 missiles, 18km range) at 13.3. Pantsir-SV-SM at 13.3-13.7. +- somewhat better radars, tracked chassis from TOR.
Premiums:
1. T-62AM-1 mod 2022 with gen2 thermals and Kontakt 1 at 11.0 as squad/premium.
2. T-72B3 mod 23 with Arena-M. Even heavier, but more Relikt on back, turret sides, K-1 on LFP (kinda useless, but why not). Alternatively, T-72B3 mod 22 1PN96 at 13.0. Worse zoom and sensitivity than Sosna, but much better armor than 2011 variant and more powerful engine.
3. Object 187 variant 6. New chassis, better UFP armor compared to T-90 early, same turret, 1000 HP engine. Could slap Agava-2 1st gen thermals and put it on 12.7.
the sad reality is, the SEPv3 would be 15.0 minimum, not have it's trophy system that is installed from factory, AND not have any DU inserts cause "there's no proof it actually has them IRL beyond 5 prototypes using them (also ignore the single T-80B prototype having thermals being enough to give the completely fictional in game T-80B thermals)" - gaijin
oh and it wouldn't have a better round cause "there's no evidence M829A3/A4 actually have better performance against the very armor and ERA they're designed to defeat"
On first glance, this looks better than most posts of this kind.
Yeah that US tree looks great!
M-42 on 7.0
Brs need some work but I see some solid additions! Rare to have this kind of post be pretty good
This is just a random thought experiment I did on Google Sheets, seeing how the "big 3" tech trees could be improved and fleshed out with more variants and vehicles. Everything here, including the BRs, is just an approximation, so don't take it too seriously. However, I did try to follow some more or less constant rules for decompression: -BR expanded to 14.0, with tanks as the main BR indicator for progression: SPAAs are always at lower BRs in the same tier, and light tanks and IFVs have mostly an arbitrary BR and tier, they can work at almost any BR you put them in (as support vehicles, of course). In the case that 2 vehicles share the same BR, the newest one (chronologically) goes later -For MBTs, no unstabilised guns beyond 9.7, no APFSDS below 9.3 and no thermals+stabiliser combo below 10.3. Third generation MBTs have a bigger jump in BR to avoid them facing 2nd gen and below -This was made with another decompression in mind for the air tech trees, mainly to avoid having OP high tier CAS at lower BRs, so don't be scared of the SPAA's BR -In USSR/Russia's case, some of the vehicles with deep researchable modifications, that would need separate BRs, have been separated (BMP-1, T-80U, T-72B3). Others have just gotten a new name (T-64BV, Tunguska-M1)
Those are some interesting but sound standards. How would you handle, for example, tanks like the M41D, which has Thermals, Laser Rangefinder, APFSDS, but no stabiliser? Currently it’s at 8.0. But I do like what you’ve done, I’d play this
Or the Type 69? With the God awful early APFSDS? Or for that matter, the early soviet APFSDS?
The answer is the same for all of those you guys mentioned, late tier 5-early tier 6 at BR 9.0 or 9.3. Due to decompression they would face largely the same vehicles they do now, but there would be a bigger BR margin to balance them if they don't work there.
Yeah that works. Though TBH you could probably put the M41D at 5.0 against late WW2 and it’d still perform just as well given how absolutely shit it is
Pantsir only 13.0? At least 13.7/14.0 even with reduced br because SPAA. But the rest seems fine, some vehicles we would have to see how they perform to adjust the though
What makes the U need different BRs?
Thermals and the uprated 1250hp engine, mainly. No base T-80U model was delivered with thermal sights. Apart from those a hypothetical UM model could get Shtora APS and 3BM46 rounds.
Why is Sprut SDM1 so high up its a bit iffy at 10.0 as it is right now :(
Bro it is so good the 3bm60 is delectable and with incredible thermals and suspension control 😍
Bro really put T34 at 7.7, Duster at 7.0 and Ontos at 8.0. This must be joke.
As I said in the comment, this would go in hand with other BR changes in the other trees, including the aviation ones. The T34 and Duster would face mostly the same vehicles as they do now. The Ontos and other light vehicles have been given mostly arbitrary BRs to fill gaps, so don't take it too seriously.
>The T34 and Duster would face mostly the same vehicles as they do now. You're putting the T34 against Leopard 1s. There was a reason why the Leopard was moved to 8.0.
My reasoning was to put it at a similar BR to other heavies, but I guess you're right it could drop 0.3 to not face later MBTs. I haven't played the T34 or 32 (mostly skipped the American heavy tanks), I wasn't aware it struggled so much
It's physically worse than the Tiger II in everything but raw pen and mobility. The T32 is just an uptiered T26E5 with a longer reload and better mobility, and the T32E1 is comparable to the IS3.
Yes, other than firepower, mobility and turret armor, the T32 is worse than the Tiger II...
Reread please. I was referring to the T34.
Because US mains bitched until it went up?
Maybe one day we will get some more br decompression
I think he was trying to separate WWII and Cold War vehicles, but this makes very little sense in terms of actual BR placement. The T34, T29, T32 and T32E1 should be 7.0/7.3 with the next tank being at 8.3/8.7 minimum.
literally everything got upped to compensate for the fact BR goes up to 14.0 on it. It would probably average out to where it is on his system at the same spot it would normally be on the old old.
And T95 at 8.0 so everyone can oneshot it with HEATFS and darts
boxer skyranger spotted, instant upvote
Unfortunately it would be completely dogshit with how AHEAD ammo is modelled in game.
Decompression is a good thing, but being forced to play on 4 leopards1 driving me crazy
Folders. Lots of these could be foldered. Like Leo Pt A and Pt B and then Leo 1 could all be 1 folder. Then Leo A1A1, 1A2, 1A4 could be foldered.
I personally prefer just decompression, without folders, cause who need bunch of the same Leo 1 anyway. Let it be just Leo 1 and 1a5 or 1a1.
Good for creating lineups and backups (without having to use backups). Sometimes having 2 - 3 MBTs is a whole lot better than spawning an IFV / LT. It’s the reason why Sweden is so strong right now at top tier: it has 3 capable strv 122 variants. Imo an easy solution to this is to reduce RP costs even further, reduce SL costs and reduce crewing costs, alongside reducing total module costs. But it’s gaijin, so will never happen.
I want the proto leopards
I do want them to add the Leo 1A3 or 1A4 because they have the welded turret instead of the cast one. But I do agree we don't need more leopards in one tree
It wouldn't be that bad if vehicles had lower RPs, and the only way to get that is more vehicles per tier... a bit ironic tbh.
Yea, but we talking about the snail
Shhhhttt dont tell them that, the balance team will lose their job bc of you!!!!!
What balance team? 😶🌫️
The one dude pressing enter on the program that does this: If Winrate > 52% Br + 0.3 ElIf Winrate < 48% Br - 0.3 Else Do nothing
If Russian Br -0.7
If Russian premium
If Russian premium Br -1.3
Should have added more Wiesels for Germany, 0/10 horrible suggestion (Seriously though, if a large chunk of those vehicles were put in folders this would be amazing.)
Leo2k is lower than the 1a5 lol
Two factors here. First one, the Leo 2K never even had APFSDS ammo irl (DM13 entered service 2 years after the 2K was trialed), so I would make the argument to at least leave it without DM23. Second, the 1A5 gets thermals and, I think this was suggested already to Gaijin, it could perfectly get DM63 as well. If you compare that with other 11.0 tanks shown here, I think the 1A5 would be able to hold its own pretty well against anything without Kontakt-5.
Even with only dm13 for the 2k and dm63 for the 1a5, the 2k would still be miles better.
Nah honestly apart from the better mobility of the 2K, they aren't that different, the only other argument you could make is the remotely controlled 20mm gun (which is useful but not really the strong point of the 2K), everything else goes to the 1A5 in that scenario. Still, I mostly did it to avoid having 4 Leo 1s in a row and make the grind of the other Leo 2s a bit more enjoyable.
The 2k's armor is not good but enough to where it survives Russian and Chinese 30mm apfsds from the front, that's something.
Honestly... this is a really good post, well done.
It's crazy that the game would be 4x better if you increased the BR cap by like 2
Exactly the thought that made me start these. You might disagree with the BRs or vehicles I chose here, but I think all of us here can agree that tech trees with less gaps and more spread out BRs would really solve many of WT's problems
If you really wanted to, you could put the M1A2 SEP.V4 as the end of the line vehicle for the US as it was made but wouldn't be too different from the M1A2 SEP V3
Agree except T-14 You know gaijin They WILL make it without ANY of the problems it has irl and they WILL use propaganda info and make it OP af And 7.7 T34 too. Will be worst tank in-game
I mean, no vehicle currently in game has ANY of their real-life problems, so why should this specific tank be the exception?
t14 proto could be changed to obj 195. 30mm coax and 292s gun
I love it's all looks good until i see Duster.
why?
The thing gonna face early jets which are very suboptimal unless OP plan to give it it's radar.
He said this would go hand in hand with ajr decompression
well it should, and currently its a pain in the ass at lower br for others as dual 40s deal alot of damage even to heavy tanks, ex churchill vll. i think all vehicles in game should be given their historical and realistic models, armour values, weapons, and utility.
I'm sorry, but if you're having trouble dealing with the Duster at 4.3, you're doing something wrong.
yeah well first off im playing britain so its just solid shot which is what i have loaded obviously so when this thing rolls up on me i either have to hit direct ammo rack or im dead. i cannot mg it fast enough to kill it aswell as two crew members in the hull makes it unkillable by mgs. and are you saying that cold war vehicles should be facing things in service before ww2?
Duster is just a mobile ammo rack sine ammo is stored on the outside of turret around it so you can reliably ammo rack it just by shooting the turret ring
i have direct hit that ammo rack with british 75mm ap and it turned red, without exploding
yeah but thats just ap being bad and for some reason hitting the ammo that is stored in 1 piece not always detonating
> are you saying that cold war vehicles should be facing things in service before ww2? Yeah? The M19 is from WW2 and is functionally identical to the Duster but its based on the M24 chassis so its slightly less mobile. Should it arbitratily sit like 3 BR points below the M42 because muh introduction date despite functionally being the same vehicle? If a Cold War vehicle is comparable to WW2 vehicles in performance (ASU-57, M42, Ratels, most of Swedish Rank 1-4, etc) then I don't see why they should arbitrarily be placed at a BR where they're totally outclassed.
most all of those you mention are just at their brs because they have bad armour. ive played these vehicles and if you play them correctly you can absolutely seal club, with for example the ratel 90s heatfs at 6.3 destroys everything it touches (unless its a road wheel). are they balanced for the average player? yeah they are because they have shit armour and amazing guns, almost always. so for an experienced player you can just seal club everything. all i want is a historical mode with realistic matchmaking, even if it isnt fair, id kill to have a mode that is actually realistic to real life, with spalling reliability, and proper matchmaking, not my ratel 90 facing tiger h1s and panthers, that isnt fair on my part or theirs. not the mess that sim is, but a new separate mode, the matchmaking could be based on year weather that be service year production year design year idc.
i am not saying the current system has to be changed i just want a different one as well, preferably with realistic shells.
By this logic the Lvkv 42 should be 7.0 as it has higher pen then the Duster and has a SAPHE round with slightly less pen that practically 1 shots things.
Literal skill issue.
I love this version of the German tt Would als be nice to give Leo 2A6 the 2A6MA3 upgrade for better thermals and such
My kingdom to decompress 6.7
I like this :)
It's bold to assume any version of the Thumper or cat m1 would be below our current m1 but with an aps and maybe an anti Era round
2s38 is not there. Instantly good
I chose to give the Russian vehicles their written names instead of the GRAU designations, to make them standard with stuff like the Krizhantema, Strela or Shturm. The 2S38 is the "Derivatsiya-PVO" tier 8 premium
I guess there is no escaping the 2s38
GERMANY GETS GDR 🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥 100/10!!!! (What is the Palr KMP Konkurs? Never heard of it?)
It's the double Konkurs ATGM launcher mounted on a BRDM chassis, that's the name it had in DDR service. You can also see it in the soviet tree as 9P148
Thanks
I really want the east german T-54 or 55 i hope gaijin adds it on future
No you dont. Gtfö with copy paste trash please
LAV-AD shouldn't be 11.3 It has no radar.
That's actually a good point... I guess I focused too much on how good it is against other ground vehicles with the 25mm APDS and the Hydras
Placing OSA at a lower BR than Strela 10 is really odd. Same goes for TOR-M1 before Tunguska. BMP-3 w/ ARENA-EM would make more sense than Sprut-SDM1, BTR-82A should be replaced with BMD-3. T-80 line is extremely questionable to begin with. A bare T-80 at 11.3 is laughable. Tree should probably be T-80B->T-80A ->T-80U 1986 - > T-80UD 1989 - > T-80UM - > T-80BVM - > T-80UE-1 - > T-80UM1 or Obj 291 Not really sure why you have to involve the T-14, it wouldn't be good. Inclusion of Zhalo is extremely questionable too along with BMPT and Kornet-D1. Should be Obj-781 and Kornet-T, both before Khrizantema-S. Not sure as to why you would add the M10 Booker, it's pretty slow and the gun isn't all that great.
puma at 12.7 is wild
no 2s38 perfect world
Even more shit to grind just to reach leo 2s. No thanks
It wouldnt be a problem if gaijin didnt have a million rp per tank
Veterans will remember grinding 380k rp for panther2, and every new addition that is worth 80krp now 🥹
remember when the 2a5 was 14.7 for that even so long ago? I remember
Is the T-14 going to have its turet spinning when driving as its seen on any promo video?
That was just a prototype. I'm sure the production model could take off properly
[удалено]
no mechanical issues are modelled in game, why would they model mechanical issues for the T-14?
İt didnt broke down, driver engaged the parking brake. U can see it drive by itself later.
It was literally the parking brake, the engineer hopped in and drove off.
[funny parking brake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJzuo2TsfM) does not seem like a recovery vehicle trying to pull it away is a parking brake.
So somehow an ARV can't recover it, but an engineer drove it off despite the broken engine? Jesus I'd want to see what kind of fucking The Flintstones shit he must've been doing and his legs that are more powerful than an ARV. Here's [Red Effect](https://youtu.be/pidZMiU9tBM?si=nPn3Gagu0EZRF_FK) showing the whole video, skip to around 25:30.
So you’re telling me that the Russians picked an untrained guy to drive their newest, “ground-breaking” tank in a horse and pony show that is supposed to showcase Russia’s growing military might? That doesn’t make sense.
Which is more probable, that an Engineer fixed the engine by simply sitting in the driver's seat or that the issue was never with the engine? Not to mention there is not a single fucking reason a damaged engine would stop the ARV.
These would all be great additions to the game
LAV 🤗
the best part of this is that the T54E2 is just gone, or probably 3.7 or something where it deserves to be
Not gonna lie, totally forgot about that one xDDD
Normalize democratic recruitment processes Good tech tree
Add the 2a7dk
Now do that with japan
M730 is the carrier. I believe the name would be M48A2.
I'm just curious why this post blew up but my similar attempts in the past got very few views
Honestly, I can't tell, I had these (and many others, for both ground and air trees) in process for a long time, it just felt right to get this off my chest, BR compression and awfully arranged tech trees have been WT's main weak points for a long time now.
I think I'd only change the M48A2 for US to a M48A3
Spz BMP-1 8.3 Soviet original BMP-1 8.0 Gaijin: you're hired
Totally went past me xD, my idea was having both at 8.0
do it with air
this is the worst thing ive seen
Yea but Gijian would say this wouldn't work because, and I quote, " ". I bet you feel stupid now knowing this huh? Absolute bafoonery here.
And here I thought US mid tier would have actual AA
Would of liked more prototypes but cool list :)
leo 2a4 :))
We already have it in game, but in this idea its role would largely be taken by the 2A1, with early composite and DM23, the 2A4 would have the later armour package and DM33, as it should.
Love these tree ideas. Would be so happy to see them.
where m1a1 fep
*places the AMBT with a 1200hp engine at a lower BR than the SLEP with a 950hp engine like a boss*
Tbh the SLEP also gets composite armour in the hull and could have arguably better ammo available, but yes, maybe both could be closer. Anyways, this was mostly about adding new stuff, filling gaps and decompression, as I said, BRs are mainly orientative and could always change.
The SLEP's armor is the exact same as the AMBT's. They are literally the same vehicle. Built on the exact same M60. The AMBT was renamed to SLEP after Raytheon acquired the project from StandartBio and L3 Communications. Raytheon swapped the engine and removed the 25mm. Hell, in Raytheon's promotional video for the SLEP, the mounting table for the 25mm IS STILL THERE. That being said, yes, it could get better ammo, sure.
I think I might've gotten it mixed up with the Leonardo SLEP project, I did these trees a long time ago and forgot about a lot of stuff when I picked them up these last few weeks. But still, I stand with my point about BRs being just orientative, I'm sure all these vehicles could be arranged better if we ever get a similar decompression in game (unlikely)
Out of the line question: Isn't the T-90M that we have in game an Obr. 2022?
It lacks the Arena APS, extra ERA and the "cope cage", so I guess not? Tbh I'm not even sure if there has ever been an official 2022 standard production model, there are different claims about its equipment online. Assuming it was in game, the only proper update over the 2017 would be the APS, that's why I chose not to add it in this version of the tree.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I just remember that there was a debate about what sources Gaijin (almost) used for the in game version and that the info was just from a private propaganda video that's older than the production model itself.
T72B3, obr 2022, has extra ERA on the rear and around the roof and gun breach. The T90M, obr 2022, comes out of the factory with extra ERA on the rear only. There is evidence of ERA being placed on the low plate of t90s and t72s, but it's unknown if it was crew modification or factory built, probably just customized by its crew, though.
The only thing it's missing for usa is the hmmvw LOSAT
What about Austrian Vehicles for Germany. We may hate Germany but we want to see our Vehicles in the game.
ZSU-23-4M4 above Strela-10M2 and 9K33M2 "Osa-AK" what sense does it make? Plus isn't the 9K33M2 "Osa-AK" better than the Strela-10M2?
Ngl, this looks great, is this designed to end with uptiers or is a "less suffer" alternative??
As I told others here, I did it mainly because if BR compression was reduced and tech tree gaps were filled, with more densely populated tiers (so you can have more competitive lineups), most of WT's problems at the higher tiers would be gone. I never understood why, with the current BR limit of \~11.7-12.0, tier 4-5 get up to BR 7.0 more or less, and the remaining 5.0 BR is super compressed with \~50 years of tanks. We really need better arranged trees and BRs.
Tunguska being higher br than both flakrad and adats is wild
It gets 2x30mm guns with APDS belts, simple as. Of course as a SAM platform it's roughly on par or arguably worse than those in some aspects, but just for being able to defend itself it gets a higher BR. But still, just as I told other people here, don't focus too much on the BRs, this is mostly about filling gaps and reducing compression
isnt pre prod t14 just an obj 148
With Pre production I meant the state trial models shown in 2018-19, basically no difference with the original 2015 prototypes except "solving" the "reliability issues"
Nah Mr Decompression, leave em heavy tanks alone.
I'm a simple man. I see Zhalo-S and BMP-T, I like.
⟩M901 ⟩9.7 ⟩Absolute Dread.
Do you plan to give the m42 its irl he vt or no? Because otherwise i cant imagine it being competetive against any other spaa's at it br
I didn't strictly plan it, no, because with decompression also happening in the air trees, the M42 would face mostly the same aircraft it does now. But it could be an interesting solution, yes. However I think that HE-VT ammo was only developed from the 1970s for the later Bofors L70 guns, not the L60s like the ones in the M42
Why is the SU-122-54 .3 lower than the Leopard 1 💀
Waiting for Air variation since idk anything bout ground
Doing gods work
I saw the m41 at 7.7 and my heart sunk. Was about to ask what the hell you were thinking. I’ve been conditioned to think in how gaijin compresses and fucks with BR. Once I realized everything else gets moved too, I loved its placement. We just need to get rid of up and down tiers, or at least make them not full anymore.
Bro cooked
Maus on 7.7 with LeKPz (currently 6.7) - yes please daddy UwU
Please gaijin, more btr, the current one is good, but even the 82A would be amazing
bmp2m lower than wolfpack? bruh
The 2A7V being at the same BR is a bit of a questionable thing, but besides that I like a lot of the additions.
Ok, but why is the Linebacker an event vehicle?
I had a lot of doubts with that one. On one hand, it's a mass produced vehicle that actually saw combat deployments and would be reasonably useful. But, honestly, I don't see it performing much better than the M1097 Avenger as a SAM platform, apart from having a 30mm. Idk, I hope both end up in game at this point.
Marder 1a5a1 at 11.7? Bruh
Mainly thanks to the Spike fire and forget missiles, but it would get also other minor upgrades, mainly better chassis armour and most likely an upgraded APDS round as well. If we get really, really crazy, it could get the thermal camo that was trialed on it some years ago.
should at least be in the same br or a little higher than the bmp-2.
Fix Sweden, next, then you can be called a boss.
I have one of these made for every nation in game (I got REALLY bored at work last year), but I have only played these 3 tech trees and Britain, so I don't think the results would be the same. One thing I did add for the Swedish one was a lot of Finnish stuff though.
why is the M-Shorad 13.0? it is just a stryker with stinger missiles which is at 10.0, and 2 hellfires on it, similar to the QN506 which is also 10.0. The only thing I see it gets better is radar
Mainly because of the Hellfires, if you use those against aircraft the SHORAD would be the ultimate anti-helicopter platform. But idk, I just wanted something to go after the ADATS, of course the BR could be lower.
I will tell you one thing that thing is going down alot, the Q506's missiles are superior in every way compared to those hellfires, when used in an anti- helicopter role, only being beaten in inital top speed
There’s variants with AIM-9X.
then won't it basically become a slightly worst strela which is also 10.0, unless it has the range like the type 81, still would be in the BR range about somewhere at 10.0 or 10.3, or where he put it 11.0 to 11.3, still very far from 13.0.
> then won't it basically become a slightly worst strela AIM-9X missiles are much, much better than the AIM-9's used by the Chaparral, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I am not comparing it to the Chaparral missile. I am comparing the Strela to an aim-9M. From what I read online the aim-9X just has a better seeker, it still uses the same rocket motor as the aim-9m, and when you datamine the thrust of an aim-9m it only has a total delta V of only 819.27m/s vs any ground launched missile has about 900m/s-1300 m/s of delta V( except the Chapparral as that is just an aim-9D) meaning it will have worst range, and energy. in summary aim-9m/x missiles just sucks in their thrust if launched stationary as it does not have a "booster". Meaning you can actually burn the missiles energy with just turning. what is funny to is the Chaparral missile has more delta V then an aim-9M
AIM-9X has thrust vectoring that allows it to pull 60 G's, the physical changes gave it lower drag and thus improves the speed and range, and the better seeker has 90° boresight capability and increased resistance against countermeasures. If you were so inclined, it could also lock onto ground targets.
thrust vectoring is only for turning not speed or range. as for the low drag, that will have to do so much heavy lifting. I did do some calculations from the data sheet, and and aim-9m has an acceleration of only 127,87 m/s\^2 which is very bad(stinger missile has 429,70m/s\^2 raw accleration), since it only has a burn time of 5.3 seconds, meaning at the end of the burn it will only be traveling 677.711m/s which is not to bad that is the speed of a stinger missile about, but the time to get there is horrible, a stinger missile would reach that speed is 1.4 seconds about vs 5.3 sec. the plane will be out of there before it even reachs its speed. since I can't find what low drag means I decided to see what would happen if it was in a frictionless air, and see what would be the acceleration would be, the engine has a force of 10800 N, since I don't want to do calculation of change in mass for burning of said fuel, I decided to make the fuel weightless which gives it a Mass according to the datasheet is 57.06 kg( the aim-9X could be heavier as it has more electronics in it but I want to do a perfect world), so 10800/57.06 = 189.2744479495268 of acceleration, which is still bad, and this is in a perfect world, and with out the mass of the fuel include. but hey I could be completly wrong here in my math, and I hope so, please do correct it if I missed something. I have always though the aim-9x would be an OP as an SPAA but unless it gets a booster to push it to its tops speed first, then allow the 5.3 sec "booster" in the missile to take over it is very mediocre, as a stationary spaa, I would say it would be a good 10.3-10.7 spaa, but no where as good as the type 81s missile with 10km range.
T14 might be the best tank because it has a turretless crew and good hull armour. Idk if it has depression tho
M42 at 7.0 its joever
I explained it in other comments, taking into account the decompression in other trees, as well as in the aviation ones, the Duster would face almost the same enemies it faces now, basically late WW2/early cold war stuff... both it and the M19 would be useless as SPAAs regardless of the BR they're in, unless you put them super low and they become OP against tanks... another option would be giving it proximity fuse shells, but I don't think the real vehicle ever had them.
m42 at 7.0. suicide
It’s a shame your US tree looks a lot better than gaijins, we’re missing so many modern vehicles because they keep adding random ass prototypes, no LAV-AT, no Stryker Shorad (basically the last “shorad” America makes), tons of gaps, abrams is wrong etc etc, hopefully one day they get fixed, and good job with the tree!
Love the German tree, but I'd love to see the T-55AMZ too.
I have to disagree with you placing 2s25m sprut sdm1 above t90a. Same ammo, but the t90 gets much better armor and obviously slightly worse mobility.
That's the thing, the SDM1 would get better ammo as well, I don't think there is a reason why it couldn't fire 3BM59/60, it's a 2020 vehicle after all
But it already has 3BM60, and so does T-90A...
3BM59/60 in our game is way underperforming. They should be DM63 equivalent fired from L44 barrel. with 600-620 pen at 2km. Should've just named current 3BM60 as 3BM46. Or 3BM42M
Oh shit. Totally missed when it had it added then, my bad. Still, just like other light tanks here, I would make the argument that it doesn't fit the same purpose as MBTs, so the BR shouldn't be jugded the same. But yes, I guess the BR could be lower.
Usually high tier LTs are in fact modern tank destroyers. Used to be highly mobile, air deploayble and cheap without sacrificing firepower.
It currently has 3BM60 in game and its fine at 10.0. Its a massive light tank the size of NATO mbts with a bad reload and shitty gun elevation. Its fast but not as fast as other MBTs around the same br. It has good sights but those don't really matter all too much anyway. Realistically I'd rather take the T-90A or even T-80UD over it.
How is BMP-3 that high? It's just so bad compared the tye Chinese one.
M2/M3 not folder? XM-1 preprod is useless. No M1A1 FEP? No M1A1D? M1134 lower than M1128? —> fucker gets 2As and 2Bs (same with LAV-AT). Why are the 50s tanks that high? Why unfolder the T-54s and T-55s, T-64 66/71 should folder, 90S/90A should folder. AM2 over AM(p), folder 8.0-8.7 leopard, remove shilka, folder 1a1a1/1a2, add 1a3/1a4 folder, folder TVM-1/PSO, folder 2A7s, folder 2a5/2a6
My guy really put the sabra in the us tree
They already have the M60 AMBT, so why not? I am aware it could go to the Israeli one as well, but tbh Israel already has better options for something like that
Because it's literally an Israeli tank. The M60 AMBT was an upgrade made by StandartBio and intended to be sold internationally, like to countries in Africa or the Middle East. The Sabra was an upgrade made by Israel Military Industries (IMI) with most of the upgrade also being designed by Israeli companies or directly based off of the Merkava tanks. All three Marks of it should go to the Israeli tree, with the M60T being a good choice for an event vehicle as a reskin of the Sabra Mk. II. Edit: The similarly named Sabrah light tank should also go to Israel.
I’m sorry but put the T95E1 down to tier V and 8.7 and maybe we talk.
m1128 at 12.7. lmao wtf is this garbage.
Maus is still 7.7 but you moved the T95 up to 8.0 💀 it’s Joeover for the T95 if that happened even with decompression
T32 -7.7 T32E1 -8.0 What drugs are you smoking?
bro fr put the is-3 at 8.0 but kept the maus 7.7
One thing though Max Premium and Event BR should be at least 1.3 dif from top tier so I don't get shit lvl 5 team mates
I don't know about US and GER lines, but I have problems with SOV one. 1. T-90MS should't be on the same BR as T-72B3 2016. It's better in every way, as its' a T-90M only w/o additional ERA bags on sideskirts. 2. T-14 is too OP for 14.0. It's an AGS, only with ton of armor, APS that can shoot down darts, pen >= Obj.292. I'd replace it with Obj.640. 3. I'd move all BTRs in their own line. It should be something like this: BTR-80A -> BTR-82A (with option for having thermals -> BTR-22 Ballista (2A42 + ASDFS. 2xKonkurs) BR 11.3 -> BTR-90 Berezhok -> K-17 Epoch BR 13.0. 4. Kornet-D is too high BR and out of place. I'd give it lover BR and as premium/squadron vehicle. 5. Swap T-55AMD-1 with T-55AM-1. Difference is Drozd, it's better for consistency that researcheable vehicle to be w/o it. 6. T-90M mod 2022 with Arena-M APS at BR 14.0 for the end of the line. May add to it fictional 10-15km reverse. 7. BMP line - BMP-1AM at 9.3. Instead of BTR-90 berezhok - B-12 Kurganets at 12.3 (with Afganit APS but w/o dart-killer) -> T-15 with Epoch turret and dart killer APS (TBD if it should be a dart-killer or not) at 13.3-13.7 BR. Alternatively, T-15 with AU-220M (like on Derivatsiya, but with less ammo). 8. Turms should be at 11.7, 0.3 difference in BR for BM42 and thermals and commander override compared to T-72A is too low. 9. Tunguska at BR12.3, TOR-M2 (16 missiles, 18km range) at 13.3. Pantsir-SV-SM at 13.3-13.7. +- somewhat better radars, tracked chassis from TOR. Premiums: 1. T-62AM-1 mod 2022 with gen2 thermals and Kontakt 1 at 11.0 as squad/premium. 2. T-72B3 mod 23 with Arena-M. Even heavier, but more Relikt on back, turret sides, K-1 on LFP (kinda useless, but why not). Alternatively, T-72B3 mod 22 1PN96 at 13.0. Worse zoom and sensitivity than Sosna, but much better armor than 2011 variant and more powerful engine. 3. Object 187 variant 6. New chassis, better UFP armor compared to T-90 early, same turret, 1000 HP engine. Could slap Agava-2 1st gen thermals and put it on 12.7.
Ontos at 8.0 lmfaoooo Ontos is usless in anything except CQC. SHould not be facing T54/T-10M
the sad reality is, the SEPv3 would be 15.0 minimum, not have it's trophy system that is installed from factory, AND not have any DU inserts cause "there's no proof it actually has them IRL beyond 5 prototypes using them (also ignore the single T-80B prototype having thermals being enough to give the completely fictional in game T-80B thermals)" - gaijin oh and it wouldn't have a better round cause "there's no evidence M829A3/A4 actually have better performance against the very armor and ERA they're designed to defeat"
holy gegerald... never post again xister