Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
M10,2a5,leclerc(spelling????),ariete,T-80U/M1A1(super close but t80 wins),
T-80U is better than the M1A1, except for close range (M1A1 has better turret traverse and the weakspots are bigger and easier to hit).
I don’t know for sure, but the ‘average’ I hear is
Leopard 2A5
T-80U (actually T-80UM technically)
Leclerc
C1 Ariete*
M1A1
*Ariete is only there because it can penetrate a T-80U frontally though the UFP, and is the best performing with pure penetration. Although idk how good it is now with the WAR package.
C1 Ariete — regular
Ariete (WAR package) — increased turret protection
Ariete (PSO package) — increased side armour
thanks for the info
T-90
M1A2
Leclerc Serie 2
Ariete (fully spaded)
Leopard 2A5
those are my best guesses after 2.01
(Lol JK, but I'm probably right)
This is my opinion on top5 MBTs.
With Lclerc i win alot of games alone, probably will be the best toptier mbt for quite some time to come, i have alot of warthunder friends and when we make 4 men Lclerc squad we are almost invencible...
I'd actually disagree.
I'd even go as far to say that meta wise, the T-80U is the first Russian counterpart to the M1 / IPM1 Abrams. Comparing the 80U to the M1A1 is just unfair. (And I'm pro Britain typically)
I feel like top tier goes like this, from best to worst:
Leopard 2A5
Leclerc + Ariete tie for 2nd place
ADATS
M1A1
IPM1 + Leopard 2A4
T-80U (Comes just under the M1 / IPM1)
OTOMATIC (no joke, extremely competitive vehicle ironically)
Challenger 2 + Type 90 joint bottom (Type 90 has its perks like Hydraulic suspension etc, but is a terrible MBT overall, little to no survivability)
I have reasons for all of these.
1: The Leopard 2a5 has the best all around package, from high-definition thermals and night vision, commander night vision (binos) which is a massive advantage, decent tier shell, impenetrable hull-down capability (even the chally 2 doesn't have this for whatever stupid reason), best general manueverability in all directions and even trolly side armor at times, a benefit that no other top tier tank has.
2: The Leclerc is like a baby 2a5, you get a better shell, more weakspots, a better reload rate and similar performance, but unlike the 2a5, its far from being impenetrable when hulldown, so you can't just delete a team without consequence when in a good spot. Very close second.
3: The Ariete is a monster, rendering all armor except the Chally 2 cheeks and 2a5 turret obsolete. Its also very trolly with the ERA package vs helicopters, I've wasted several missiles in my Lynx not realising I was shooting at the new War package Ariete, which sucked. Pro tip: Just get into a good spot and hammer away at everyone.
4: ADATS for whatever reason never seems to hull break, and its missiles are unmistakebly monstrous. I put this 3rd place though due to the fact that you only have 8 of them, not really a big weakness tbh. Also the lack of stabiliser and the enormous silhoutte are drawbacks.
5: M1A1 (and all the Abrams for that matter) are still the best survivable tanks in the game, which is why I believe they're 100% better than the T-80U from a gameplay perspective. Very rarely are you gonna delete one of these tanks in a single shot, which from a teamplay point of view, is a HUGE deal.
Put it this way, if I have a team of 8 T-80's and a team of 8 Abrams, if only one of those Abrams manages to flank, he could easily kill half the enemy team and with single shots as well. If a T-80 manages to flank, he's RARELY going to kill an enemy Abrams with a single shot, which means his time to kill is far larger, meaning he'll have far less impact on a flank overall. Teammates can notice and come to the rescue of the Abrams under fire, etc.
The Abrams armor is also very sufficient, and the tank in general has some of the best handling characteristics of all top tier vehicles (in terms of gun control systems and movement), put simply, the Abrams is just functionally a better tank. It can reverse and smoke out with ESS easily, it can't be 1-hit KO'd easily, and it can't be dunked on by helis easily.
6: The 2a4 is marginally a similar vehicle to the Abrams, though I'd consider it inferior simply because it doesn't have the insane survivability of the Abrams.
7: T-80U, this is the first vehicle I'd even consider comparable to the Abrams (if inferior), it still doesn't have the survivability, it doesn't have the reverse speed or the getaway cards that the Abrams has... but it does have armor, providing that nothing penetrates its large weakspot, and it does have an average gun with impressive ballistics. The T-80U is a tank that needs large open battlefields, and suffers in urban combat (albeit not as much as the Challengers).
8: OTOMATIC comes just under the T-80U, if played well this thing can decimate a team. Air and Ground alike. Its essentially a 9.3 ADATS with more ammo. If you can get the OTOMATIC to a capture point, you can negate that issue. As a support tank, there's literally nothing better in War Thunder; extremely effective if playing with friends w/ good communication.
9: Challenger 2 and Type 90 come dead last. Note, that with this outcome, I'm not saying that these tanks don't have beneficial or defining characteristics that make them good vehicles. They absolutely do. But they don't fit the gameplay style of War Thunder.
The Challenger 2 is excellent hull-down, but for whatever reason the mantlet superstructure can be penetrated by pretty much anything. The roof is also easily penetrable and stands out like a sore thumb. It has an average gun but with excellent reload, which helps it somewhat providing you have an aced crew. The overall movement performance is lacking sorely which means you'll have a tough time if you can't get into position.
The Type 90 is the opposite, its fast and whilst its gun is average (compared to the competition), its survivability and armor is almost non-existant. The Hydraulic Suspension helps it on rough terrain though, and can give you unmatched gun depression compared to other top tier MBT's. The Autoloader helps, but not as much as it used to, with other, better tanks having comparable loading speeds. You also don't have any backup whilst playing the Type 90, which leaves you mostly in a situation where you're basically useless when looking at the overall battle.
Very detailed post, i appreciate it. So, from most of these opinions, the 2A5 seems to be top dog. But i feel that won't last very much longer.
On a side note; I'm very close to unlocking the Type 90 (about 20k rp away). Judging by your post about it, it doesn't seem so great. Sounding like one of the worst MBT's. Should i still get it, or skip it for now? I don't feel like wasting 1.5 million silver lions on something that won't be of much use to me. But, it also sounds like one of those tanks that require more skill than the usual point, click, delete. Which intrigues me
The M1A1 theoretically is only superior in CQC with stuff like it’s better turret traverse and neutral steering, but even so, I still kill many M1A1s and M1/M1IPs in CQC, it’s just an advantage and not a for sure winning factor.
Meanwhile, have the enemy over 200m away which is still majority of the time, you have your front and gun facing the enemy already and you’re a much better tank.
No, you don’t have the survivability. Nor should you for the T-80U. Because you get armour instead — only the Leopard 2A5’s turret compares to the T-80U’s 220mm thick plate, 150mm being high hardness RHA, angled at 68°. The M1A1 has better survivability, but by not too much tbh as I can 1-hit M1A1s, and 2 hits are more common (which 1 hit incapacitates them), while the T-80U, exclude Ariete’s shell, is immune to all ammunition in game frontally except for small weak spots that sometimes (not always even but often) result in instant death. So essentially, rather poor armour for some survivability for excellent armour with less survivability.
While outside of the turret traverse and neutral steering, the 1500 HP engine is better, but propels a heavy nearly 60t tank. Meanwhile, the 46t T-80U has over 600+mm vs KEP, a 125mm smoothbore gun, and a 1,250 HP gas turbine engine for it to only weight 500kg more than the Panther. So the T-80U is easily equal in just forward mobility, if not slightly better due to the lighter weight.
While the one of two only advantages (survivability not included, as it is a trade off scenario) is increased firepower, which is considered but not enough in my opinion, since the penetration difference is only 20mm or so. Which means the T-80U still lol-pens the M1A1 over 2km away, if they actually allowed for realistic combat ranges, while the M1A1 can penetrate the U only in the weakspots it has. Also this is allowing for hypothetical more realistic combat ranges, which I hope we get someday, but the same happens even if the M1A1 gets M829A1, which it should as it is historical. M829A1 can only penetrate the T-80U at close range though the (main portion) of it’s armour, so only in CQC would it be able to penetrate the T-80 like the Ariete can. Meanwhile, if we’re talking about realistic ammunition, the T-80U — or actually, the T-80UM as it is in game — would get 3BM42M and 3BM46, which honestly is no way the M1A1 could bounce them at all, as they would be equal or better than the Ariete’s shell currently (historically up to to over 650mm penetration RHAe at 2km).
So I stand by my positioning of the T-80U in my list.
At least in Realistic Battles and Simulator Battles from my list,
I know he plays arcade at top tier, so some things might change. Arcade is even moreso CQC oriented, and since speed is much higher, the M1A1 and Leclerc as mentioned should go up, since the Leclerc has a 1500 HP engine times whatever multiplier they use, for only low 50t weight. While the M1A1 gets even more mobility and gets even more point blank combat. So specifiying gamemode might change opinions.
M1A2 will be very powerful, as it skips even the M1A1(HA), which (unless Leopard 2A5 gets DM53) will be more equal to the 2A5 (or slightly less equal, barely).
Leopard 2A5 would be on top of all of this even, if they give it DM53.
At least from what I researched,
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/460489-br-decompression-rank-iv-vii-tanks-v-vi-aircraft/
In my BR decompression suggestion, I made a section to prove that decompression can work even in the future, including future tanks we could get. Which I went though the WT suggestions, sites about these tanks, ammunition they might use, and more, it isn’t 100% accurate and there are some assumptions made (like this is assuming more realistic maps and more realistic ammunition/armour performance), I tried to make a list of possible list of MBTs for 10 nations we could see in the far future, representing up to BR 15.0. It can’t be 100% accurate, nor can it be since we are in the hypothetical realm now too, but perhaps you would think it is interesting, as I do have like “Leopard 2A5 (DM53) 14.3”, “M1A1(HA) (M829A1) 13.7”, etc.
Note that I wasn't saying that the T-80 was weak by any means, nor was I saying it wasn't competitive. Its certainly strong and yes, as you say, you can certainly trounce an Abrams player. I've had games where I've driven my T-80 through and crapped on a team, doesn't mean it happens all the time though.
However, War Thunder is very seldomly about face to face fighting, and the majority of kills are going to be made by flanking players. The Abrams is just straight up, a better tank for the job and I was saying "meta wise" its better at it.
If I'm going on the flank, I'd rather be using an Abrams than the T-80, but that's just my 2 cents.
If we go by the statistics though, the T-80 is the better vehicle in most respects. I just think the Abrams is the better "field" vehicle. Remember that most Abrams drivers speed around like their butt is on fire, which doesn't help them lol.
I only play Arcade and Sim, though less-so of Sim, just when I feel like it.
The Type 90 is a strong tank, don't get me wrong. But amongst the top dogs, its not the toppest dog, its the underdog; which can lead to some frustration.
If I can relate it to anything, its kinda like the Leopard of top tier, with the same hydraulic suspension of the Type 74 and STB-1 (albeit even better performing), a really good autoloader, and good general manueverability characteristics (albeit with mediocre turret rotation).
Like the leopard, you can't rely on its armor to save you with anything, and you don't have survivability either, so you need to avoid taking hits. :)