T-10A Needs a lower BR

[Bu3(SW)]

I remember getting this tank for a Battle Pass reward and being so excited. It is actually a really great tank. However it is put in a BR it has no business in and this has still not been fixed. So I will make my case again.

This tank has great armor but not at 7.7 up to 8.7. This tank does not have HEATFS or APFSDS, it is slow does not have night vision for the gunner, has a low power to weight ratio and while it has thick sloped armor that armor is useless in a BR where thick sloped armor doesn't mean much anymore.

If this were brought down to 6.7 there are still tanks that would give it a run for its money even in a down tier. There is not a single country that would not be able to have a counter to this tank even in a down tier to 5.7 (except Israel because they have no 5.7 lol).

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

Originally posted by Abinadi:

The premium tiger has more pen and far more effective armor since it can angle without presenting major vulnerabilities.

bro the t-10a has a bloody circular turret, sure the tiger has more pen, but if it doesn't aim for your turret shot trap, can it even pen you in the front?

your armor is way more effective idk how you are trying to downplay this.

There are tanks at this br that can frontally pen the turret but the hull is a lot weaker. Also you bring up the t10 being a circular turret well the tigers flat nature allows far more effective armor. The T10 can not angle or it exposes its weak sides and cheeks.

A T-10A is far easier to kill then a tiger

[Khergit Horse Archer]

Originally posted by Abinadi:

A T-10A is far easier to kill then a tiger

bro i think you are beyond delusional

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by oulala:

wow, if you put the T10 at 6.7, where do you think IS3 belongs?

That is a fair question but my assessment still stands as the T-10A is in way higher a BR than it can function.

To Everyone else:
If you all disagree as to how far I respect your difference of opinion. I have stated my rebuttals and you all have stated yours.

I believe for the most part we agree that it is in too high a BR we just disagree with as to how far out of sync it is.

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

Originally posted by Abinadi:

A T-10A is far easier to kill then a tiger

bro i think you are beyond delusional

We can hop in a private match and do some testing if you would like.

[biomike]

If it goes down to 6.7 can the Maus go down to 6.3, its slower then the T-10 so it should be lower
But seriously if you think if it is having a problem at 7.7 then you should look at the tech tree version that is at 8.3 and is doing fine

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by biomike:

If it goes down to 6.7 can the Maus go down to 6.3, its slower then the T-10 so it should be lower
But seriously if you think if it is having a problem at 7.7 then you should look at the tech tree version that is at 8.3 and is doing fine

You are just being factious with the Maus comment. The T-10A is in no way comparable to the Maus its more like a panther since it has great frontal protection but tissue on the side.

That is not the same tank The one in question is the A and that is the M and the M is more mobile, has better pen, APDS and HEATFS and a 2 plane stabilizer. Also I would not say it is doing fine there either but with its advantages it would not be right at a much lower BR either. T-10M is a mess though and not very good at that BR.

[biomike]

Originally posted by Abinadi:

Originally posted by biomike:

If it goes down to 6.7 can the Maus go down to 6.3, its slower then the T-10 so it should be lower
But seriously if you think if it is having a problem at 7.7 then you should look at the tech tree version that is at 8.3 and is doing fine

You are just being factious with the Maus comment. The T-10A is in no way comparable to the Maus its more like a panther since it has great frontal protection but tissue on the side.

That is not the same tank The one in question is the A and that is the M and the M is more mobile, has better pen, APDS and HEATFS and a 2 plane stabilizer. Also I would not say it is doing fine there either but with its advantages it would not be right at a much lower BR either. T-10M is a mess though and not very good at that BR.

Both T-10A and T-10M have the same armor

Originally posted by Abinadi:

This tank has great armor but not at 7.7 up to 8.7. This tank does not have HEATFS or APFSDS, it is slow does not have night vision for the gunner, has a low power to weight ratio and while it has thick sloped armor that armor is useless in a BR where thick sloped armor doesn't mean much anymore.

All the things listed here the Maus has even worse

[gamer(gaming)]

T-10A is absolutely a beast at its br and is the perfect grinder for russian rank5-6 imo, so glad i actually grinded it out during the battle pass. You just gotta learn not to play it like all the other 7.3-8.3 mbts.

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by biomike:

Originally posted by Abinadi:

You are just being factious with the Maus comment. The T-10A is in no way comparable to the Maus its more like a panther since it has great frontal protection but tissue on the side.

That is not the same tank The one in question is the A and that is the M and the M is more mobile, has better pen, APDS and HEATFS and a 2 plane stabilizer. Also I would not say it is doing fine there either but with its advantages it would not be right at a much lower BR either. T-10M is a mess though and not very good at that BR.

Both T-10A and T-10M have the same armor

Originally posted by Abinadi:

This tank has great armor but not at 7.7 up to 8.7. This tank does not have HEATFS or APFSDS, it is slow does not have night vision for the gunner, has a low power to weight ratio and while it has thick sloped armor that armor is useless in a BR where thick sloped armor doesn't mean much anymore.

All the things listed here the Maus has even worse

The Maus is nearly impenetrable. My stance is not one of a singel stat but the total sum of its parts.

I never said the M and A have different armor. They are drastically different though with the M having a lot of upgrades.

[kamikazi21358]

The T-10M is not very tanky as a heavy tank for it’s BR, but lowering it would make it very powerful and would be very strong with a gun that has both the ability to 1-shot everyone or ignore everyone’s armor. Essentially it is too complex of a situation to merely lower it, while it is not perfect to keep it at it’s current BR because it isn’t a heavy tank that heavies.

BR decompression however would fix both issues.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Abinadi:

Originally posted by ♠Gamer3106♠:

.....we literally just explained why it shouldn't be 6.7....

By saying it was not comparable but it is absolutely comparable and not just to the jagdtiger but most vehicles in 6.7. It literally does not excel in a single stat over the rest of the vehicles in 6.7

From The German Tree alone you see how similar it is in practice to these two:
Tiger II H 6.7
Panther G (5.7)

I added turreted examples for you since you think it was that big a deal.

The Tiger II's armour is significantly thinner, it's also flat on the turret face, and the UFP is nowhere near as effective due to significant differences in angling of the plates.

The T-10A also has a vertical stabiliser, which none of the 6.7 tanks you've mentioned have, and is a MASSIVE advantage

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by Abinadi:

By saying it was not comparable but it is absolutely comparable and not just to the jagdtiger but most vehicles in 6.7. It literally does not excel in a single stat over the rest of the vehicles in 6.7

From The German Tree alone you see how similar it is in practice to these two:
Tiger II H 6.7
Panther G (5.7)

I added turreted examples for you since you think it was that big a deal.

The Tiger II's armour is significantly thinner, it's also flat on the turret face, and the UFP is nowhere near as effective due to significant differences in angling of the plates.

The T-10A also has a vertical stabiliser, which none of the 6.7 tanks you've mentioned have, and is a MASSIVE advantage

Yes the tiger has thinner armor but not effective armor. The tigers effective armor is astronomically higher than the T-10A. The T-10A can not angel like the tiger can or it will get one shot through the sides.
Try it in penetration sim or in game and you will see on paper T-10A looks far greater than what it is. That is not to say it is bad but it is not 7.7 good either.

[biomike]

Originally posted by Abinadi:

Originally posted by biomike:

Both T-10A and T-10M have the same armor



All the things listed here the Maus has even worse

The Maus is nearly impenetrable. My stance is not one of a singel stat but the total sum of its parts.

I never said the M and A have different armor. They are drastically different though with the M having a lot of upgrades.

You listed reasons for wanting the T-10 at a lower BR can be used the same way for the Maus
No HEAT-FS or APDS
Armor good for 7.7 but not for 8.7
No stabilizer
No night vision
And low power to weight, the T-10 has over triple the Maus' power to weight and double the top speed so the Maus comes off even worse

[Bu3(SW)]

Originally posted by biomike:

Originally posted by Abinadi:

The Maus is nearly impenetrable. My stance is not one of a singel stat but the total sum of its parts.

I never said the M and A have different armor. They are drastically different though with the M having a lot of upgrades.

You listed reasons for wanting the T-10 at a lower BR can be used the same way for the Maus
No HEAT-FS or APDS
Armor good for 7.7 but not for 8.7
No stabilizer
No night vision
And low power to weight, the T-10 has over triple the Maus' power to weight and double the top speed so the Maus comes off even worse

But the Maus's armor holds up so like I said you are just being factious. Try to take the abuse a Maus takes with a T-10A and you find out that yes it is strong frontally but it is panther like on the sides and will die really fast. Also at its current BR 7.7 it is frontally penned a lot. It's biggest advantage is negated purely because it is in too high a BR to use it. You can not angle either so your relegated to either get that first shot in and hope nobody else is nearby or you die every single time. It might as well be a light tank its armor is so ineffective at 7.7

[Kay]

Originally posted by Abinadi:

Originally posted by Kay:

The Tiger II's armour is significantly thinner, it's also flat on the turret face, and the UFP is nowhere near as effective due to significant differences in angling of the plates.

The T-10A also has a vertical stabiliser, which none of the 6.7 tanks you've mentioned have, and is a MASSIVE advantage

Yes the tiger has thinner armor but not effective armor. The tigers effective armor is astronomically higher than the T-10A.

It's not even close, let alone any better.

Originally posted by Abinadi:

The T-10A can not angel like the tiger can or it will get one shot through the sides.

The sides. That are thicker or as thick as and better angled or at the same angle as the Tiger's sides. With the Tiger's turret face still being nearly 100mm thinner not even accounting for angling.

While the UFP is already pre angled to well beyond what a Tiger II can get it's front plate to without exposing it's sides.

Originally posted by Abinadi:

Try it in penetration sim or in game and you will see on paper T-10A looks far greater than what it is. That is not to say it is bad but it is not 7.7 good either.

I have it in game. 7.3 would be the absolute minimum BR for it, and it's honestly still good at 7.7.