Tanks/Vehicles Object 279; The FINAL Soviet Heavy Tank

[kev2go 5,112]

This is the tank they design to survive a nuclear blast, right?

No tank would sirviv3 if they are within the direct blast.

Tanks like the t55 started receiving NBC systems. Internal coating to prevent radiation from seeping in as well as an air filtration and oxygen system so th crew can breath. Meaning such tanks can operate in a nuclear war in irradiated areas and perhaps survive the shockwave but no tank would survive if they are directly in the blast radius.

[Dinobubba7 4,062]

No tank would sirviv3 if they are within the direct blast.

Tanks like the t55 started receiving NBC systems. Internal coating to prevent radiation from seeping in as well as an air filtration and oxygen system so th crew can breath. Meaning such tanks can operate in a nuclear war in irradiated areas and perhaps survive the shockwave but no tank would survive if they are directly in the blast radius.

This was only designed to survive the shockwave of a nuclear blast, like you said it cant survive the main blast if in close proxy

[Results45 2,200]

 

279 is better in every way in comparison (unless the T110 gets HEAT). The Object 279 can easily penetrate it, whereas the T110 cannot penetrate the Object 279. Not even close to fair.

 

                                             VS.

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

 

Does this ring any bells?

Edited February 21, 2016 by Results45

[kev2go 5,112]

 

 

 

 

                                             VS.

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

 

Does this ring a bells?

 

 Yeah

 

 

Gib t64 threads trying to spin that m60a1 and chieftan would still be competitive enough vs it in wt meta?  :Ps

[Results45 2,200]

Gib t64 threads trying to spin that m60a1 and chieftan would still be competitive enough vs it in wt meta?  :Ps

 

Could be done.....just do it like Wargaming: put the thick stuff from the turret to the bottom and switch the thin stuff back on top xD

[kev2go 5,112]

Could be done.....just do it like Wargaming: put the thick stuff from the turret to the bottom and switch the thin stuff back on top xD

 

but wargaming is healthbar "simulator" with balanced stats, it doesnt compare to War thunders damage model.

 

why do we really need more endgame content when what is coming either with 1.57 or soon after is more than enough ( and balanced) for tier 5?

Edited February 21, 2016 by kev2go

[Results45 2,200]

......why do we really need more endgame content when what is coming either with 1.57 or soon after is more than enough ( and balanced) for tier 5?

 

HP bars are outdated -- they just make gameplay too predictable  ;)s

IMO the only way to make existing Tier 5 vehicles attainable (with the grind and all) is to add stuff from the late-60s/70s so that lower vehicles are compressed to lower tiers. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by Results45

[kev2go 5,112]

HP bars are outdated -- they just make gameplay too predictable  ;)s

IMO the only way to make existing Tier 5 vehicles attainable (with the grind and all) is to add stuff from the late-60s/70s so that lower vehicles are compressed to lower tiers. 

 

you cant balance by adding these tanks your only goingto create a situation where endgame either need to be moved down where they will club or be at a position where they will be clubbed instead.

 

its really not worth starting powercreep or worsening balance situation.

[Results45 2,200]

you cant balance by adding these tanks your only goingto create a situation where endgame either need to be moved down where they will club or be at a position where they will be clubbed instead.

 

its really not worth starting powercreep or worsening balance situation.

 

Before you go on, I'd appreciate it if you considered this:

 

[spoiler]

First off, is vehicle battle-ratings.  Right now, they’re static. You get the vehicle and the BR never changes. Not when you’ve gotten all the upgrades, and not when you’ve spaded it. So here’s my idea to – in a way – to ‘solve’ this issue:

 

--- Increase the BR of a vehicle by .2 or .3 from the base-BR (I’ll explain the .2 in a bit) once the vehicle has been fully upgraded and spaded.

 

Secondly, is to make decreasing the MM BR-spread from +/- 1.0 to +/- .7 feasible. It includes adding a “_.5” level of BR between .3 and .7 (or – in other words – an extra BR level) Through adding this extra level of BR, a +/- .7 BR-spread will be feasible because BRs will be more compressed and thus (putting this a bit extremely) BR 5.7 Shermans won’t have to face BR 7.7 IS-4Ms and Conquerors like it is right now.

 

Re-cap of BR ideas for making a MM BR-spread feasible (for all you skimmers out there):

 

--- add a “_.5” level of BR between .3 and .7 in order to compress vehicles of similar battle capability

 

Third is an alternative to lowering the MM BR-spread down to +/- .7 across all battle modes (AFs/GFs/NFs).  The alternative (because the devs have shot down the idea on multiple occasions) is to lower the BR-spread to +/- .7 only for aircraft.  I reason so because AF battles is (according to Gaijin) the most popular game mode and the AF tech trees contain twice as many vehicles as GF tech trees.  Since the majority of players participate in AF battles and the aircraft tech trees are twice as full, the claimed “unbearable” increased wait times and ‘unfair’ BR compression shouldn't be an issue.

[/spoiler]

 

detailed examples:

[spoiler]

If an "n.5" BR-level were added to the existing "n.0 to n.7" BR-range for all tech trees, the +/- 0.7 BR-spread would be feasible   :yes:

The calculations below are overall BRs for an individual player matched into battle:

 

---> Overall player BR @ n.0 (2.0 - 0.7 = 1.3 (lowest BR opponent you'll face) to 2.0 + 0.7 = 2.7 (highest BR opponent you'll face))

---> Overall BR @ n.3 (2.3 - 0.7 = 1.6 (lowest BR faced) to 2.3 + 0.7 = 3.0 (highest BR faced))

---> BR @ *n.5* (2.5 - 0.7 = 1.8 (lowest) to 2.5 + 0.7 = 3.2 (highest))

---> BR @ n.7 (2.7 - 0.7 = 2.0 (lowest) to 2.7 + 0.7 = 3.4 (highest))

 

note: * * = the idea to make everything as is above^^ possible (not actually in-game yet)

[/spoiler]

Edited February 22, 2016 by Results45

[kev2go 5,112]

Before you go on, I'd appreciate it if you considered this:

 

[spoiler]

First off, is vehicle battle-ratings.  Right now, they’re static. You get the vehicle and the BR never changes. Not when you’ve gotten all the upgrades, and not when you’ve spaded it. So here’s my idea to – in a way – to ‘solve’ this issue:

 

--- Increase the BR of a vehicle by .2 or .3 from the base-BR (I’ll explain the .2 in a bit) once the vehicle has been fully upgraded and spaded.

 

Secondly, is to make decreasing the MM BR-spread from +/- 1.0 to +/- .7 feasible. It includes adding a “_.5” level of BR between .3 and .7 (or – in other words – an extra BR level) Through adding this extra level of BR, a +/- .7 BR-spread will be feasible because BRs will be more compressed and thus (putting this a bit extremely) BR 5.7 Shermans won’t have to face BR 7.7 IS-4Ms and Conquerors like it is right now.

 

Re-cap of BR ideas for making a MM BR-spread feasible (for all you skimmers out there):

 

--- add a “_.5” level of BR between .3 and .7 in order to compress vehicles of similar battle capability

 

Third is an alternative to lowering the MM BR-spread down to +/- .7 across all battle modes (AFs/GFs/NFs).  The alternative (because the devs have shot down the idea on multiple occasions) is to lower the BR-spread to +/- .7 only for aircraft.  I reason so because AF battles is (according to Gaijin) the most popular game mode and the AF tech trees contain twice as many vehicles as GF tech trees.  Since the majority of players participate in AF battles and the aircraft tech trees are twice as full, the claimed “unbearable” increased wait times and ‘unfair’ BR compression shouldn't be an issue.

[/spoiler]

 

detailed examples:

[spoiler]

If an "n.5" BR-level were added to the existing "n.0 to n.7" BR-range for all tech trees, the +/- 0.7 BR-spread would be feasible   :yes:

The calculations below are overall BRs for an individual player matched into battle:

 

---> Overall player BR @ n.0 (2.0 - 0.7 = 1.3 (lowest BR opponent you'll face) to 2.0 + 0.7 = 2.7 (highest BR opponent you'll face))

---> Overall BR @ n.3 (2.3 - 0.7 = 1.6 (lowest BR faced) to 2.3 + 0.7 = 3.0 (highest BR faced))

---> BR @ *n.5* (2.5 - 0.7 = 1.8 (lowest) to 2.5 + 0.7 = 3.2 (highest))

---> BR @ n.7 (2.7 - 0.7 = 2.0 (lowest) to 2.7 + 0.7 = 3.4 (highest))

 

note: * * = the idea to make everything as is above^^ possible (not actually in-game yet)

[/spoiler]

 

dont forget that yod be grinding addition 380k points for addtional modles. 

 

there are alwasy going to be some aircraft or tanks in tier 5, thats going ot be harder to balance, even iif you lesson or adjust.

 

if you really want to go further into cold war or into modern era youve got AW.

 

 

i still stand that these vehicles are unnecessary and and would start a powercreep and create more balancing issues, even more so at a time when current issues arent fixed.

 

 

IT begins where war thunder ends.

Edited February 22, 2016 by kev2go

[Results45 2,200]

dont forget that yod be grinding addition 380k points for addtional modles. 

 

there are alwasy going to be some aircraft or tanks in tier 5, thats going ot be harder to balance, even iif you lesson or adjust.

 

if you really want to go further into cold war or into modern era youve got AW.

 

i still stand that these vehicles are unnecessary and and would start a powercreep and create more balancing issues, even more so at a time when current issues arent fixed.

 

IT begins where war thunder ends.

 

Pretty sure that when CEO Anton Y. make his statement "likely 1960s for planes and '70s for tanks" he had somewhat of a '10 years into his company's future' train-of-thought in mind.......

 

I'm just coming-up with potential solutions to make such extended timeline additions feasible (instead of stuffing all the new high-end stuff in Tier 5).

[SirToast 388]

dont forget that yod be grinding addition 380k points for addtional modles. 

 

there are alwasy going to be some aircraft or tanks in tier 5, thats going ot be harder to balance, even iif you lesson or adjust.

 

if you really want to go further into cold war or into modern era youve got AW.

 

 

i still stand that these vehicles are unnecessary and and would start a powercreep and create more balancing issues, even more so at a time when current issues arent fixed.

 

 

IT begins where war thunder ends.

 

AW is shit and is not a sequel.

[sabaton_ 3,821]

I want it, I really want it, more support guys!!!

[kev2go 5,112]

AW is **** and is not a sequel.

 

i never said it was related to gajins war thunder.

 

What i meant was its cold war era game, it timeline woud essentially start where war thunder begins. With tanks like m48/m60 going into moern era, whereas these are going to be pretty much the endgame tanks. in wt.

 

hence why i said it begins where war thunder ends.

 

I dont think more modern tanks have a place in war thunder. Id rather have gajin just straight up make a a new game once the get around to finihsing war thunder, on more modern aircraft/ vehicles, rather than jam everything into 1 game.

 

I mean grinding in itself is already hugely tedious with entry tier 5,s would you really want ot ground 380k rp over and over again till you got from your current endga,e m60 to your m1a2 abrams? or your T90 tank?

Edited February 23, 2016 by kev2go

[Results45 2,200]

I mean grinding in itself is already hugely tedious with entry tier 5,s would you really want ot ground 380k rp over and over again till you got from your current endga,e m60 to your m1a2 abrams? or your T90 tank?

 

So the whole issue you're bringing up (as well as many other) is BRs, RP-grinds @ T4/T5, and vehicle price.

 

--- As the devs compress T4 and expand T5, they should reduces RP/SL prices by between 20-40%

--- Such compression should make 0.7 BR-spread feasible

--- Addition of a n.5 BR-level between to smooth-out the T4-to-T5 hole (currently @ BR 6.7-7.7)

--- Definitive 50s naval craft & 70s vehicles (nuke-powered submarines, M60A3, Leo 1A5, Cheiftain Mk.5, T-62, AMX-30B2, & T110/Conquerer Mk.IIH/IS-7) with some exceptions for aircraft like G.91Y & Super Entendard will be the grinds people squeeze out of the game. xD

--- Fantasy Tier 5 only  Cold-War Mode  :Ps (as a gameplay bonus to incentivise insane T5 grinding)

--- Better game to play within the next 5 years (or as we hope).

[kev2go 5,112]

So the whole issue you're bringing up (as well as many other) is BRs, RP-grinds @ T4/T5, and vehicle price.

 

--- As the devs compress T4 and expand T5, they should reduces RP/SL prices by between 20-40%

--- Such compression should make 0.7 BR-spread feasible

--- Addition of a n.5 BR-level between to smooth-out the T4-to-T5 hole (currently @ BR 6.7-7.7)

--- Definitive 50s naval craft & 70s vehicles (nuke-powered submarines, M60A3, Leo 1A5, Cheiftain Mk.5, T-62, AMX-30B2, & T110/Conquerer Mk.IIH/IS-7) with some exceptions for aircraft like G.91Y & Super Entendard will be the grinds people squeeze out of the game. xD

--- Fantasy Tier 5 only  Cold-War Mode  :Ps (as a gameplay bonus to incentivise insane T5 grinding)

--- Better game to play within the next 5 years (or as we hope).

 

 

i never said anything about not filling in gaps. My concern was extending with OP protypes and or into the composite era to modern tanks

 

 

um m60a3 vs t62 is quite a stretch.

 

M60a1 & cheiftan mk2/mk3 & leo1a1/a2 vs t62  easily will suffice.

 

 

its really not nessary to go any farther into the composite era. of tanks.

 

we should only & absolutely only start talking about extending current tier 5 content or adding any more further tiers once all 3 branches ( army, avaition, navy)  are farily fleshed out, and working as inteded. as well as word war mode,  before running off with more modern content

 

 

adding more era right now isnt going to help and just make a very bad cluster **** of the game. I realise new content is exciting but i think some people are getting too ahead of themselves.

Edited February 23, 2016 by kev2go

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

I want it, I really want it, more support guys!!!

 

Everyone that has to face it doesn't.

 

 

I mean.. this pen (Soviet standard):

+

5-10 RPM (10 RPM is burst).

+

Insane protection

+

Good mobility. 

 

 

It's in a situation where it's too powerful for in-game vehicles, still too powerful for vehicles like the T110/T95 projects, yet not powerful enough to fight the MBT/KPZ-70. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Choogleblitz

[Results45 2,200]

i never said anything about not filling in gaps. My concern was extending with OP protypes and or into the composite era to modern tanks

 

um m60a3 vs t62 is quite a stretch.

 

M60a1 & cheiftan mk2/mk3 & leo1a1/a2 vs t62  easily will suffice.

 

its really not nessary to go any farther into the composite era. of tanks.

 

we should only & absolutely only start talking about extending current tier 5 content or adding any more further tiers once all 3 branches ( army, avaition, navy)  are farily fleshed out, and working as inteded. as well as word war mode,  before running off with more modern content

 

adding more era right now isnt going to help and just make a very bad cluster **** of the game. I realise new content is exciting but i think some people are getting too ahead of themselves.

 

Hey, no sweat  8)s

 

I agree that stuff like Obj. 279, MBT-70 (predecessor of Leo 2 & M1A1), and T-72, but notice that with HEAT/AFSPDS ammo, plastic-reinforced steel armor, infrared range-finders, night-vision, and (relatively) modern computerized FCS stabilization, things like Leo 1A5, Chieftain Mk. 5, AMX-30B2, Type 74E, and Pz. 68/88 should be more than a match against their 1950s/60s heavy cousins (which lack some of that tech).

 

So in short: smart tactics + tech ~~> xP for Tier 5 heavies  ;)s

 

Some states from Steel Beasts Wiki & official-manual equivalent books (which I find fairly accurate & reasonable):

 

Leopard 1A5:

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/b/b3/Leo1armour.jpg

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_1A5-DK

 

M60A3 (see stats @ end of book -- the last source): 

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M60A3_(TTS)

--- http://www.scribd.com/doc/179162276/Armor-Hunnicutt-Patton-History-of-the-US-Main-Battle-Tank

 

T-55:

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-55

 

T-62:

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-62

 

T-64A/B:

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-64A

--- http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-64B

Edited February 23, 2016 by Results45

[kev2go 5,112]

Yes m60a3 is still very hard pressed against a T64a especially the t64B

It's powercreep because in this era soviets have better tanks in the 70's.

In wt meta teams full of T64a would really pound M60's in. I'd say even the inital t64 with 115mm is still op.

M60A3 vs t62 would I'm turn be unfair it's the electronics package, laser rangefindrr and ballistics computing that gives it the improvement over m60a1.

Just like the T64 a to the t64B.

It's not convincing at all still unesseary. In wt


Frankly the polls only say that most player do not want said tanks from the Op initial post.


Then again why are you using a video games stats as sources. Not actual ones.? Edited February 23, 2016 by kev2go

[Results45 2,200]

Here's the one:

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/179162276/Armor-Hunnicutt-Patton-History-of-the-US-Main-Battle-Tank

 

[spoiler]

 

 

 

 

 

[/spoiler]

 

EDIT: found actual values from US field manual FM 100-165 --- http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/302662-authentic-ammo-penetration-values-from-a-us-field-manual-fm-100-65/

Edited March 15, 2016 by Results45

[Sir_Timmey 121]

I would crying a lot if this tank come into WT... :(s

[Sir Rebral Palsy 2,423]

Just watch Gaijin just add this bloody tank sometime soon and say "Oh but you have Maus, T95 and Tortoise balanced komrade." -.- 

[Results45 2,200]

We should really get these double-barrreled SPGs for April Fools sometime to shoot the hell outta Obj. 279 & MBT-70:

 

VT1-2 (2x120mm "Leopard 3" TD):

--- http://survincity.com/2013/04/project-vt1-tank-nicknamed-leopard-3/

--- http://www.tankinfo.ru/Country/Germany/3/Leopard-3__VT1-2.php

[spoiler]

 

[/spoiler]

 

Twin-barreled 2C35 demonstrator:

[spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvy-XAaYEHg

 

 

[/spoiler]

Edited March 15, 2016 by Results45

[WolfyFritzin 146]

Yes please. Make it amphibious aswell.

[igeticsu 3,400]

I have to say, Ive said no to this earlier but now I would say.. No. Let me explain,

I wouldn't mind this vehicle being added but its gonna be quite the awkward situation since anything that isn't HEATFS would only be able to pen it from rear & side turret.  So if this was introduced I would say it has to go into a BR where all of the vehicles it meets should have HEATFS.

 

Also it would be harder to pen the hull of this thing from the side than front xD awkward...