Jump to content
EcchiRevenge

Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

Recommended Posts

On 09/02/2020 at 9:31 PM, EcchiRevenge said:

Oh look, more attempt at arguing against facts?

Your thread is literally made to complain that the tank that doesn't have any frontal weak spots and which has a main armament option that does 30%+ damage is being let down by the armour and damage model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vewt said:

Your thread is literally made to complain that the tank that doesn't have any frontal weak spots and which has a main armament option that does 30%+ damage is being let down by the armour and damage model.

Imagine not knowing T-72B3 frontal weakspots, slower reload speed, and Refleks ATGM's limitations(you probably conveniently forgot that Refleks got nerfed to 500mm penetration, same as Konkurs and Malyutka, so not only is this just as iffy in a head-on engagement due to not being able to pen abrams lower frontal plate, it also does less damage to tanks than those other two).

Even if you play badly and pretend depression, traverse rate...etc. isn't a factor...

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

Imagine not knowing T-72B3 frontal weakspots, slower reload speed, and Refleks ATGM's limitations(you probably conveniently forgot that Refleks got nerfed to 500mm penetration, same as Konkurs and Malyutka, so not only is this just as iffy in a head-on engagement due to not being able to pen abrams lower frontal plate, it also does less damage to tanks than those other two).

Even if you play badly and pretend depression, traverse rate...etc. isn't a factor...

I'm not going to engage in a drawn out argument. I won't be posting again after this. I'm aware of all the things you just said, no imagination required, but they're all irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The T72's "frontal weak spot" is it's lfp at 80mm. "Frontal weak spot" has airquotes because no decent crew will ever expose it as it is will placed to obviate any need to do so. The Abrams has two "frontal weak spots", a 70mm front turret roof that's not a weak spot for any practical engagement, and an 80mm turret ring that must be exposed for basically all engagements.

 

The overall armour configurations are very simple: The T72B3's weak spots, frontal and otherwise, make it vulnerable to ambush scenarios when mishandled but for fighting other tanks are far better. It has a better turret from all frontal aspects with higher armour and better angles, but a weaker frontal hull. The M1 has a more forgiving armour model for novice crews against novice anti-armour squads, with a stronger ufp, but is far worse for fighting tanks head on because of weak spots that must be exposed even when hull down.


The Refleks having its pen lowered is basically incidental to the point that it's a higher damage option, because it's just that - an option. You don't have to use it. It has its place for long range ambushing where it massively outperforms main gun in first round hit probability and damage potential, but main gun is generally better for combat. The M1 doesn't get that option, but in return gets slightly better gun handling. Armament configuration mirrors what's happening with armour configuration - a good crew has more options with the T72 that are more effective in specific situations, but the Abrams is more forgiving for novice crews. 

The T72B3 is very consistently the preferred tank for high level crews in Squad, in large part because with good crews it always wins a heads up fight with an M1 due to a better armour configuration. That is the essence of what we're talking about here - whether the damage and armour models are screwing the T72B3, and they're not, it's the opposite: They're the key to why it's the stronger and preferred tank.
 

In a single sentence: The T72 is much stronger, but a little harder to use.

I think that both of the points you raise in the OP are just fine, but I think your reasoning and justification is very poor. This isn't a balance issue at all, but it is a realism issue: The changes you're proposing would nerf the tank that's already considered to be quite a bit weaker by good players. Conversely it's difficult to make an argument from a hard realism standpoint when so many of the characteristics and features of the tanks just aren't in the game, for example the complete absence of FCS and data linking where we know the M1A2 has enormous advantages over the T72. If you want a tank simulation that will take account of all these factors and not simplify or gamify any of them, Steel Beasts is only $125USD, but I suspect you'll get bored pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vewt said:

I'm not going to engage in a drawn out argument. I won't be posting again after this. I'm aware of all the things you just said, no imagination required, but they're all irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The T72's "frontal weak spot" is it's lfp at 80mm. "Frontal weak spot" has airquotes because no decent crew will ever expose it as it is will placed to obviate any need to do so. The Abrams has two "frontal weak spots", a 70mm front turret roof that's not a weak spot for any practical engagement, and an 80mm turret ring that must be exposed for basically all engagements.

 

The overall armour configurations are very simple: The T72B3's weak spots, frontal and otherwise, make it vulnerable to ambush scenarios when mishandled but for fighting other tanks are far better. It has a better turret from all frontal aspects with higher armour and better angles, but a weaker frontal hull. The M1 has a more forgiving armour model for novice crews against novice anti-armour squads, with a stronger ufp, but is far worse for fighting tanks head on because of weak spots that must be exposed even when hull down.


The Refleks having its pen lowered is basically incidental to the point that it's a higher damage option, because it's just that - an option. You don't have to use it. It has its place for long range ambushing where it massively outperforms main gun in first round hit probability and damage potential, but main gun is generally better for combat. The M1 doesn't get that option, but in return gets slightly better gun handling. Armament configuration mirrors what's happening with armour configuration - a good crew has more options with the T72 that are more effective in specific situations, but the Abrams is more forgiving for novice crews. 

The T72B3 is very consistently the preferred tank for high level crews in Squad, in large part because with good crews it always wins a heads up fight with an M1 due to a better armour configuration. That is the essence of what we're talking about here - whether the damage and armour models are screwing the T72B3, and they're not, it's the opposite: They're the key to why it's the stronger and preferred tank.
 

In a single sentence: The T72 is much stronger, but a little harder to use.

I think that both of the points you raise in the OP are just fine, but I think your reasoning and justification is very poor. This isn't a balance issue at all, but it is a realism issue: The changes you're proposing would nerf the tank that's already considered to be quite a bit weaker by good players. Conversely it's difficult to make an argument from a hard realism standpoint when so many of the characteristics and features of the tanks just aren't in the game, for example the complete absence of FCS and data linking where we know the M1A2 has enormous advantages over the T72. If you want a tank simulation that will take account of all these factors and not simplify or gamify any of them, Steel Beasts is only $125USD, but I suspect you'll get bored pretty quickly.

Of course you won't be responding as you know you're lacking facts.

You conveniently forgot T-72B3 mantlet, frontal roof(depending on angle), commander's hatch and the raised part of turret right blow it...etc. can also be penetrated.  I don't know what "high level crews in Squad" you're referring to but they're clearly not good enough if they don't know where to shoot on T-72B3 turret, or you don't actually know enough "high level crews in Squad" to back up that assertion.


Abrams' main turret weakspot is simply the 300mm mantlet.  These are realistic weakspots on real tanks as well since they are moving parts that cannot simply have extra layers stacked on top/stuffed in-between unlike turret front.

M1 also has superior depression(so you're almost never going to be able to hit Abrams' turret roof combined with the fact that it's a taller tank by default), speed, and traverse so it has more room to flex(either hulldown or quickly engage multiple threats, can even wiggle turret to throw off ATGM shots to mantlet while reloading).
Main tradeoff being large size(easier to hit by less-precise weapons such as RPG-7 PG-7VR, even though that's a lot harder to use than other HATs in general), but that's often irrelevant when gunners are experienced.

Refleks is way slower than APFSDS(to the point where you can back up behind a hill using abrams(which happens to have the best reverse speed in the game iirc) before it hits at ranges where it sort of has some kind of advantage) and considering you have rangefinder(and range markings are actually corrected in recent patche on T-72B3 -"Fixed T72B3 zeroing on the AP, HEAT, Frag, and Coax weapons. ") there is very little reason to use it aside from extreme range where damage/penetration dropoff and all the massive twitching from bad netcode happens(i.e. the accuracy is not that great unless it's a lucky stationary target at extreme ranges).  The target at extreme range also has to be traveling almost perpendicular to shooter for low-penetration ATGM to stand a chance.

Not to mention you only get two of those.  In a long-range ambush, it's better to just use a BMP-2(assuming you can hit with it)...
Meanwhile Bradley get the full-fat TOW missiles that lolpen pretty much anything.

Now, I am okay with Refleks not autopenning turret front/lfp of Abrams, but the damage it does makes very little sense.  So it can have either original damage back, or have penetration back. (as HEAT is still limited by 125mm diameter)

T-72B3 is actually weaker if you know what you're doing, because even hull down(not to mention it being less common due to poorer depression) won't save you from a shot to mantlet...etc.  The ammunition selection looks nice on paper until you realize HE rounds do nothing to light armor, while Abrams MPAT isn't ideal against light armor either(somehow it also deals less damage to lightskinned vehicles compared to APFSDS), it at least somewhat works against both light vehicle and infantry.

With a good crew on both sides, T-72B3 should not win against Abrams in most scenarios due to the fact that Abrams simply shoots faster.

My original point about sideskirt is actually somewhat inaccurate as it is indeed modeled, just not displayed in training.
But it still leaves areas that it does not cover vulnerable to autocannons(lower rear of side hull, for example).

The only real "advantage" for M1A2 commander is ability to fire the gun by overriding gunner input today(as above, T-72B3 obr.2016 already has rest of the capabilities once commander got his own thermal imaging sight, as long as you disregard the hard limitations such as reverse speed and turret traverse).   But without gun/lrf pointed in correct direction, he only has the same kind of stadiametric rangefinder as everyone else in the world.

There are reasons why SB doesn't have modern T-72 variants. (which has been upgraded to be equal or exceed original T-90 specs on pretty much everything but the presence of APS/eye-killer)
But hey, America's IS minions captured a Syrian T-90 and it was just spotted on u.s. highway, maybe you'll finally get a better info source one day.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

Of course you won't be responding as you know you're lacking facts.

You conveniently forgot T-72B3 mantlet, frontal roof(depending on angle), commander's hatch and the raised part of turret right blow it...etc. can also be penetrated.  I don't know what "high level crews in Squad" you're referring to but they're clearly not good enough if they don't know where to shoot on T-72B3 turret, or you don't actually know enough "high level crews in Squad" to back up that assertion.


Abrams' main turret weakspot is simply the 300mm mantlet.  These are realistic weakspots on real tanks as well since they are moving parts that cannot simply have extra layers stacked on top/stuffed in-between unlike turret front.

M1 also has superior depression(so you're almost never going to be able to hit Abrams' turret roof combined with the fact that it's a taller tank by default), speed, and traverse so it has more room to flex(either hulldown or quickly engage multiple threats, can even wiggle turret to throw off ATGM shots to mantlet while reloading).
Main tradeoff being large size(easier to hit by less-precise weapons such as RPG-7 PG-7VR, even though that's a lot harder to use than other HATs in general), but that's often irrelevant when gunners are experienced.

Refleks is way slower than APFSDS(to the point where you can back up behind a hill using abrams(which happens to have the best reverse speed in the game iirc) before it hits at ranges where it sort of has some kind of advantage) and considering you have rangefinder(and range markings are actually corrected in recent patche on T-72B3 -"Fixed T72B3 zeroing on the AP, HEAT, Frag, and Coax weapons. ") there is very little reason to use it aside from extreme range where damage/penetration dropoff and all the massive twitching from bad netcode happens(i.e. the accuracy is not that great unless it's a lucky stationary target at extreme ranges).  The target at extreme range also has to be traveling almost perpendicular to shooter for low-penetration ATGM to stand a chance.

Not to mention you only get two of those.  In a long-range ambush, it's better to just use a BMP-2(assuming you can hit with it)...
Meanwhile Bradley get the full-fat TOW missiles that lolpen pretty much anything.

Now, I am okay with Refleks not autopenning turret front/lfp of Abrams, but the damage it does makes very little sense.  So it can have either original damage back, or have penetration back. (as HEAT is still limited by 125mm diameter)

T-72B3 is actually weaker if you know what you're doing, because even hull down(not to mention it being less common due to poorer depression) won't save you from a shot to mantlet...etc.  The ammunition selection looks nice on paper until you realize HE rounds do nothing to light armor, while Abrams MPAT isn't ideal against light armor either(somehow it also deals less damage to lightskinned vehicles compared to APFSDS), it at least somewhat works against both light vehicle and infantry.

With a good crew on both sides, T-72B3 should not win against Abrams in most scenarios due to the fact that Abrams simply shoots faster.

My original point about sideskirt is actually somewhat inaccurate as it is indeed modeled, just not displayed in training.
But it still leaves areas that it does not cover vulnerable to autocannons(lower rear of side hull, for example).

The only real "advantage" for M1A2 commander is ability to fire the gun by overriding gunner input today(as above, T-72B3 obr.2016 already has rest of the capabilities once commander got his own thermal imaging sight, as long as you disregard the hard limitations such as reverse speed and turret traverse).   But without gun/lrf pointed in correct direction, he only has the same kind of stadiametric rangefinder as everyone else in the world.

There are reasons why SB doesn't have modern T-72 variants. (which has been upgraded to be equal or exceed original T-90 specs on pretty much everything but the presence of APS/eye-killer)
But hey, America's IS minions captured a Syrian T-90 and it was just spotted on u.s. highway, maybe you'll finally get a better info source one day.

The frontal roof isn't a weak spot. It's 200mm but the angling is so extreme that it can't be exploited for damage from the front, same as the Abrams 70mm roof can't really be exploited because of the angle. Even if the T72 roof were exploitable, it soaks 400 damage. 

The T72 always wins from the front because the turret ring absorbs less damage than the mantlet, such that the T72 always needs fewer hits to kill.

Also, you're mixing up early M1A1 and M1A2 capabilities. Late M1A1 and all M1A2 have a fully independent commander station that includes its own LRF. The M1 series from AIM onwards have a large number of other useful capabilities that the T72B3 family doesn't have in the areas of communications and computing that aren't posted about on the internet, many linked to FBCB2. Commander override has been on the M1 since very early days, but in earlier versions commander override will always be a battlesight engagement with range set to 1200m.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vewt said:

The frontal roof isn't a weak spot. It's 200mm but the angling is so extreme that it can't be exploited for damage from the front, same as the Abrams 70mm roof can't really be exploited because of the angle. Even if the T72 roof were exploitable, it soaks 400 damage. 

The T72 always wins from the front because the turret ring absorbs less damage than the mantlet, such that the T72 always needs fewer hits to kill.

Also, you're mixing up early M1A1 and M1A2 capabilities. Late M1A1 and all M1A2 have a fully independent commander station that includes its own LRF. The M1 series from AIM onwards have a large number of other useful capabilities that the T72B3 family doesn't have in the areas of communications and computing that aren't posted about on the internet, many linked to FBCB2. Commander override has been on the M1 since very early days, but in earlier versions commander override will always be a battlesight engagement with range set to 1200m.
 

As already addressed: depends on angle.

 

Even *if* it doesn't work; commander's hatch area is next to it.

Quote
TURRET FRONT 700mm 600 HULL FRONT UP 200mm 400
TURRET FRONT ROOF 200mm 400 HULL FRONT LOW 80mm 400

That's not how damage works.  The "damage absorbed" part pertains to component damage, not hull damage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/7xeh9g/squad_game_mechanics_post/

Both tanks are 4-shot kills (before damage dropoff); if they're not, either you're experiencing damage dropoff or you missed weakspot.


Abrams roof is less likely to be exploited because it's actually flat and it's a taller tank...as addressed previously.

Straight from steelbeasts:

Quote

The CITV can also be used to get range to a target through use of the stadia reticle (the CITV is not equipped with an LRF), and the TC can use the CITV to engage targets himself.


http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1A2_(SEP)#Using_the_stadia_reticle_to_obtain_range

Now it's up to you to prove that commander gets his own LRF instead of look through gunner's, and that T-72B3 doesn't have any of those capabilities(because what's not posted on the internet only exists for abrams amirite?).

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ingame T-72 also have the advantage of not having its ERA panels expended when hit. In reality all the fancy protection would be gone after the first hit, leaving only the relatively weak main armor left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 6:52 AM, Pluto is a planet said:

Ingame T-72 also have the advantage of not having its ERA panels expended when hit. In reality all the fancy protection would be gone after the first hit, leaving only the relatively weak main armor left.

That's assuming it gets shot in same panel multiple times when people who know how to play already aim away from ERA.
In reality composite armor/NERA array would be degraded after defeating a high penetration APFSDS round anyway; that same benefit is also enjoyed by all other relevant vehicles, including T-62, which is supposed to be something like T-62M/MV.
merkavaChobham.png

As you can see, even israeli cardboard is exposed after surviving a hit.


Don't bother trying to tell me about "muh DU plates" because the whole reason Abrams need DU, while Leotard2s...etc. do not, is because early Abrams' composite offered no improvement, or worse, in effectiveness against KE weaponry compared to RHA of same weight.

And the steel at front of Abrams' composite...etc. is not all that thick.
MnwOyI1.png

I'm surprised you didn't try to tell me shots can hit in-between the gaps of two bricks.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOP for any tank receiving a direct hit would be to withdraw from the battle for assessing the damage and repair.

But ERA would be especially vulnerable since you can detonate it even with HE rounds. And when its gone its totally gone, Damage main armor is still there to some extent.

 

The cardboard on the Merkava is btw very effective, especially for heat rounds but also for KE penetrators. Front Turret armor on Leo II is similar. Because when the penetrator hits the outer armor and penetrates it the tip of the penetrator decelerate a bit more than the base. The result is that the penetrator starts to tumble and when it hits the main armor it does so at an angle big enough to shatter the penetrator with minimum damage to the main armor. This will happen if the distance between the main armor and the outer armor is greater than the length of the rod. Anything will penetrate the cardboard yes, but thats the point.  So even if its mostly air the armor its very effective.

 

leopard_2a6_spaced_armor_2.jpg&f=1&nofb=

The addon armor on the turret front of the LEO II, its just air but it increases the armor thickness from around 600mm RHA to pretty much infinite..

 

Edited by Pluto is a planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

SOP for any tank receiving a direct hit would be to withdraw from the battle for assessing the damage and repair.

But ERA would be especially vulnerable since you can detonate it even with HE rounds. And when its gone its totally gone, Damage main armor is still there to some extent.

 

The cardboard on the Merkava is btw very effective, especially for heat rounds but also for KE penetrators. Front Turret armor on Leo II is similar. Because when the penetrator hits the outer armor and penetrates it the tip of the penetrator decelerate a bit more than the base. The result is that the penetrator starts to tumble and when it hits the main armor it does so at an angle big enough to shatter the penetrator with minimum damage to the main armor. This will happen if the distance between the main armor and the outer armor is greater than the length of the rod. Anything will penetrate the cardboard yes, but thats the point.  So even if its mostly air the armor its very effective.

 

leopard_2a6_spaced_armor_2.jpg&f=1&nofb=

The addon armor on the turret front of the LEO II, its just air but it increases the armor thickness from around 600mm RHA to pretty much infinite..

 

Well this is squad where nobody gives a shit about life and you can assess the damage by looking at HPbar/component icon. :P


In theory, with certain combination of ERA and rounds, maybe.
But that depends on how sensitive the explosive element is in the ERA(certain ERA can be so insensitive that it can be penetrated by machineguns/burnt by molotovs and not detonate until HEAT hits it).
I'm pretty sure modern heavy ERA do not simply disintegrate after detonation, you're probably thinking of light ERA like Kontakt-1(which does like to detonate both itself and bricks surrounding it; which is why K-1 is now for poor countries.).

So medium/high caliber HE rounds, sure; autocannon HE and below, unlikely.

And as you can see, that was near the tip of the turret, where it's supposed to be strongest, and it got circumcised; imo even worse than front thin layer of steel of Abrams...etc.
(though of course this might all be for looks)

The requirement for "effective" spaced armor against APFSDS is that it needs to actually have substantial amount of armor in first place.
Also keep in mind that Leotard2's wedge is...a wedge; it's not uniformly strong at all points.  The main upgrade is still the composite behind it. (2A5 isn't just 2A4 with wedge)

I'm sure you have heard of this:
v2-78f7040fa031a3cd6f8d5212dbd16773_hd.j
Virgin American M1A2 vs. Chad Swedish special(I imagine they just went ahead and thought of doubling up on the DU plate).
Ironically in-game value for M1A2 is fairly accurate(when combined with angle system).

M1A2 has reached its limits(in adding DU or Tungsten/tweaking composite layer) to the point where SEP3 is getting thicker turret front.  Remember that M1A2 all variants before SEP3 has around 950mm LOS thickness or less; and composite never comes close to its LOS thickness in RHAe, this is on top of the fact that airgap is part of the design(to allow room for penetrator/HEATjet to be disrupted before hitting the main composite array).

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×