Tantor57

Way of the Samurai
  • Content count

    2,974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
medal medal

Tantor57 last won the day on January 21

Tantor57 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,010 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Tantor57

  • Rank
    Fegelein's most dedicated friend.
  • Birthday 01/09/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Metz, France

Recent Profile Visitors

3,454 profile views
  1. Hell now your own arguments revolves around "medium tanks cannot stand Maus gun while we cannot blow it up by point and click so it's unbalanced" Also please explain me how the Maus would club on garden sized maps, with turret that is only 209 mm effective at gun level and where it could actually be ambushed in a blink of an eye.... Seriously you are talking like if the Maus at 7.3 would suddenly become kind of invincible like when it was introduced... Back then there was not a single APDS or HEATFS flying around, however they became really common even in the 6.7 bracket so stop acting like the game has not changed since then. The only maps where Maus would be very powerful in a pure 7.3 match are Kursk and a specific version of Mozdok... How often do you actually get kursk and this version of Mozdok ? And as I explained you earlier the Maus cannot flank anything, the only thing it can do is drive and shoot, granted it does not get bombed by someone that just capped and chose to spawn in a COA geared aircraft to bomb the crap out of it. All you see on the Maus is the armor and the gun and think it'll be OP. All tanks are not meant to be easy to kill and you get caught up in your own game not wanting a tank that could be harder to kill fior allied team while claiming loudly german players cry whenever they meet a tank they simply cannot point and click. Double standard much ? At last, Maus certainly isnt not the powerful tank it was. It became useless, it's the most outclassed tank in the game at it's current BR, even the IS4M can at least attempt to use it's mobility and smaller silhouette and can hope to be of any use for it's team, however it's not the case of the Maus. Also do not serve me the statistics thing when it plays on your side becauwse you know as i do that statistics should not be a balancing tool, only the tanks capabilities. I also like you sense of balance... Any tank that I cannot fight from the front and insta kill with one hit is unbalanced. Well done the game will get much better with people like you. Following your logic, Why isn't the Churchill Mk VII at 5.7 ? The only thing you want is an easy game, and you actually have a total lack of a deeper comprehension of the gameplay, hence why you think the Maus at 7.3 would be OP. I'm not blaming you for being a casual player, however when it comes about thinking about what would be balanced or not, sentence like "it's too hard too kill" "not always possible to flank" are simply not serving your point and quite the opposite actually.
  2. maus

    Certainly not as good as it was at the beginning... ALso it doesnt take much statistics, id even say that it takes none to realize that a tank that barely moves and that is the size of the barn, simply cannot do any good versus tanks that move twice as fast with twice the RoF shooting ammo that simply ignores it's armor and SACLOS missiles, withing 7.7/8.3 META armor is irrelevant, mobility, and gun are the key hence why the Leopard is considered by many as the best tank in the game. Also how can you explain the fact that it can barely be seen in matches lately ? I'm pretty sure your statistics show that this tank lost a lot of interest from the community within the last year, maybe not enoughj still to warrant a BR decrease, however a tank that went from 6/1 KD ratio from the day it was released to barely 1.8 K/D ratio (Thunderskill but still gives an indication) shows that it lost a lot of it's effectiveness and simply is not right at it's BR anymore especially when the blame in this case cannopt be put on the player because there are not X ways to play the Maus but just one, advance slowly and take the damage for your team what it simply cannot do anymore.
  3. What evidence other than how it feels to actually play it where it sits do you want me to give you ? So explain me what would be a convincing evidence for you then.... Other than that, I can tell you that neither the Maus or the IS4M are currently being played at 7.7... Neither was the T32 when it was 7.3. Why ? because it's completely outclassed and taking it would simply result in a wasted tank for your team and a total dose of frustration for the player. Period. For what is about 6.3 tanks that would face the Maus, they already face IS3M and T54-47 which both are more mobile, pack enough armour to deny reliably frontal Attack from most 6.3/6.7 tanks and guns that pack enough penetration to point and click 6.3 and even some 6.7 tanks. They are also much more flexible tanks being able to cap points, move on the battlefield, flank the ennemy team. ALL THESE THINGS, the Maus simply CANNOT do it, all it would have then would be an armor which it could finally rely on on some occasion and a big but slow firing gun. And thats about it. Secondly let me remind you that in the case of a 6.3/7.3 match up only few tanks are actually sitting at the top, iirc i think it's 4 so that would be 4 Maus versus a mix Conqueror/IS3M/T5447 and M47 patton depending on the team componition from one side or another, all being backep up by 7.0/6.7 and 6.3 tanks which are all well balanced between eachother for the most of them, some having better mobility, some better guns, etc... As I aslo said, Maus at 7.3 would be all but unkillable, there actually are a lot of tanks that can hurt it form the front and make it a sitting duck for a handful of seconds, enough to keep on crippling it or for an ally to flank it and take it out, seriously, when I meet and IS3 in my Panther II I do not drop my keyboard asking myself what i'll be able to do, I'll actually try to find the safest approach i can find and use my mobility to flank it, and if it's not possible i'll simply be patient or focus or Something else, one tank, even being the top dog in the team is not always the priority target, it's a team game and one tank alone simply cannot win the game, if the supporting tanks of the most powerful one get destroyed tehn the most powerful one will inevitably get overwhelmed and killed... We should just stop to look at the 1 on 1 scenario when arguing bout tanks being undertiered/overtiered becaused this leads to way too much misscunceptions. The Maus at 7.3 having to fight a whole team being it self backed up by it's whole team in the end would come down to the better team, hell there are tanks sitting below the Maus that have teeth sharp enough to reliably hurt it from the front, Centurion Mk 10, M47 Patton, M56 scorpion to name a few, other tanks are capable aswell either to hurt it from the front or to flank it with ease. It's a damn team game and regardlmess if it's a Maus, if it's team fails, it'll fail too keeping in mind the fact that the Maus is all but invincible. even versus the tanks it'd meet if it was at 7.3 At last, I was not insulting you and actually said Something valid, if you play the Maus now you'll understand very quickly why it can't in any way stay at 7.7, the same can be said for the IS4M, and the same could be said for the T32 when it was 7.3
  4. Except that I explained you why it wouldn't be, it would have a lot of competition here, and given the game modes and the map. A Maus at 7.3 would be less of a threat than a T54-47, or an IS3. Also go and tell me how a tank that is the size of a house can fare well against tanks going twice it's speed, firing ammo that ignores it's armor, have double the RoF, sometimes armor to whistand a direct hit frontally and SACLOS missiles ? If you agree that the T32 was indeed useless at 7.3. Then the Maus is useless at 7.7 for the EXACT same reasons. And if you still don't beleive me go and play theMaus for yourself to actually have a valuable opinion on the subject.
  5. Go and play the tank against ATGM's and HEATFS and come back tell me how fine you think it does currently. I'm tired arguing with people that do not have single clue what they are blabbing about, but just make false assumptions upon the very few they know and think they are right. And nice to finally see sane people joining in
  6. maus

    BR reduction of the Maus in the current META would actually make it playable but certainly not OP in RB with maps full of hiding/ambush points and with the IS3 and T54-47 already roamming 6.7 matches.... both are a much greater threat than a Maus being more mobile with great armor and good guns
  7. Implying Maus would face tanks, lower than the Cent Mk 3. No it wouldn't. Implying only US tanks are underperforming, No they aren't. Implying the Super Pershing is the only tank not being able what it was supposed to do. No it isn't. Implying allied team are getting clubbed because they are simply rushing in front of german guns and actually have no clue how to use their smaller and more mobile tanks on maps that greatly benefit them. You also wouldn't be saying the Maus is fine at 7.7 and would be OP at 7.3 if you had played it only ten times these days. King tiger is only clubbing scrubs that have aiming issues not being able to hit it's turret face no further than 500 meters and who only know face to face. Allied tanks have plenty of advantages that the KingTiger does not have being mobility, speed, small silhouette, better gun handling. But no a tank that has superior armor and superior gun automatically makes it the infamous OP thing. Also, trust me, the Maus is a smaller threat than the IS3 and T54-47 romaing 6.7 games daily being much more mobile, with much smaller silhouette, are they getting spammed ? Somehow yes because you can do other things than just tank damage in these things like flank ennemy team, taking cap points, all the things that can turn the tide of a match and all the things a Maus simply cannot do. Moreover, soon US tech tree will be getting T34/T32E1 possibly a styandard version of the T29 and the T30. Explain me how the would the maus break the balance at 7.3 when it'll be facing regularly all the tanks it would then face being cent Mk 10, IS3, T54 47, Conway, Conqueror + the one ive just mentionned ? let's not forget the HEATFS firing vehicles like M56 scorpion, ASU 85, and the Object. Im sure the balance would be much broken yes ? Oh, and since the allies will the the first to cap, all the guy will have to do is to ghop in his P47 or whatever planes he has, load some rockets and with a careful aim take out the Maus before it could even get 200 meters from his spawn. Yes the Maus would DEFINITELY break the balance, I'm almost shedding a tear, especially since it's probably the most underperforming tank in the entire game. And maus turret should traverse even faster than that of the E100 but doesnt...
  8. Gaijin always listen when it's about nerfing german tanks which are the only one being purposedly nerfed in this game
  9. vk3601h

    Turret traverse is madly important, also in RB i have hard time remembering when was the last time i fought over 1000 meters. Both Tiger and Panther D can be reliably killed from the front at commonfighting distance in RB. They are in no way immune to the 85 mm of the T34-85 even frontally ans as you pointed it out yourself they are very mobile which is Something very important on small maps full of ambush points and flanking possibilities. Honnestly when I see that the M4A3E2 sits now at 4.7, being immune to every gun frontally within it's BR range bar the KwK 43 of the Nashorn atht is barely played cause of hull break and the 105 mm of the Dicker max for the same reason, while still being able to penetrate most of what it faces from reasonnable distance, i call this double standard. Especially when Tiger 1 and Tiger II haveto face ammunition that simply can ignore their armor. One good point is that community seems not to have realized yet how OP the Jumbo 75 has become. But it's okay cause it's US, as soon as it's Something german, it being useless is fine.
  10. V2 turret never existed, only the V1 turret was fully completed.
  11. What is that you don't understand in the sentence "one penetration next to the gun regardless of the number of crew killed will take out the breech regardless of the ammo which will need 20 seconds of reapirs so for 20 second the Maus is a sitting duck ?" Your problem for not knowing the basics and being afraif of a tank that cant fire for 20 seconds, just another penetration and the repair times goes over 40 seconds. I have excellent stats with the Maus and my opinion is more valuable than yours when it comes to say where it'd be balanced or not in the game. 7.3 in RB would be balanced. Also small fix : The Mk 10 and Conqueror are the only two tanks at 7.0 and 7.3 that can pen it from beyond 2000 meters. However on the current RB maps, anybody with more than 2 working brain cells and knows what flanking means can own a maus in every 6.7 and 7.0 tank
  12. maus

    @Smin1080p and @Stona It'd be good if you took a look at the Maus, especially at it's battlerating... There is no reason to actually play the tank in RB at 7.7. Also when will you fix the sights in SB because the graduations of several tanks are off (vertical offset)
  13. It's good, but much less than it was with all these HEATFS firing tanks sitting next to it. I don't play 6.7 anymore due to this very fact. Playing Pz IV and Pz III is much much funnier
  14. Except, every person having played the Maus enough will tell you the exact same thing than me. Just like every person having played the T32 at 7.3 or the IS4M at 7.7 will tell you these tanks were useless. Also if you face the Maus and keep on shotting it from the front, yes it's not going to die anytime soon. But can it fight back ? No due to killed breech. Can it move ? No due to repairs. I'm still waiting for you to explain me in what way the Maus would club at 7.3 facing the tanks it'd face.
  15. Oh please go on and tell me how it'd club at 7.3 ? I've played the Maus enough in all sorts of game to dismiss every single argument you might find. But Ok... Just try.
  16. Yes it would be fair and balanced but your probably too stubborn looking only at the armor and gun of the tank completely forgetting to look at map design which actually completely plays against the Maus while giving the ennemy team plenty of possibilities of killing it. You probably never played the tank as well on the top of that, probably just witnessed it was indeed a damage sponge but that's it. Yes it's a damage sponge but would not be OP at 7.3 Also forgettibng the fact that the breech of the Maus is utterly weak, on AP penetration will kill two crew members and turn the breech at least orange, making the Maus a sitting duck for over 20 seconds. Please go play the tank before you talk about it, i'm playing it since it released and it's not a 7.7 tank anymore, I excatly know how it plays and what it is capable to do. Currently at 7.7 it's as capable as the T32 when at 7.3. Aced crew on Maus = above 18 seconds reload time. Most of the tanks I mentionned have between 6 and 10 seconds reload time except the IS3, Conway and Conqueror. Mobility is also more than top acheivable top speed, but also traverese rate, acceleration etc... It's more a slight exageration than an hyperbole, not worst than calling APDS or solid shots completely useless really.
  17. So let's see a short list of tanks that can penetrate the Maus turret front reliably in RB where fights rarely happen over 500 meters result being two crew members killed and a breech that needs to be repaired (repair time > 20 seconds) Cent Mk 3 Cent Mk 10 Caernavon ASU-85 M56 Scorpion M47 Patton with heatfs T29 with solid shot Walker Bulldog with APDS T92 with APDS Type 62 IS3 T54-47 T32 with solid shots Conway Conqueror. All these tanks have almost twice the RoF of the Maus bar few, are 5 times more mobile, all of this on maps that offers plenty of ambush opportunity without forgetting teh fact that allies are often the first cpapping points, having enough of points to jump into an attacker and rocket the hell out of the Maus that would dare to oppose a decent competition to the ennemy team.. Seriously if you beleive the Maus would be OP in 7.3 RB you seriously need to play it yourself and stop watching videos of it from players that certainly waited all day to meet an ennemy team bad enough to shoot an actual footage which makes the tank look good.
  18. @JohnGR I think i've played the Maus even in it's current state to actually know what it can and cannot do also let me answer you about what you wrote in blue. What tank is immune to the Pak 44 at 2 km ? Let me speak in practice and not in theory, because yes, no tank is rotally immune to the PaK 44 frontally, however it needs to be aimed at weakspots which from 2k or even 1000 to 1500 meters are difficult to aim at due to the ridiculous level of zoom. As a result, unless fighting close range the PaK 44 is deemed ineffective frontally versus most ennemy at it's BR. Also it's not my fault that russian tankers choose to pack mostly APHE. Im sorry but there is no way the Maus turret front can deny a HEATFS shell bar the least powerful one. If you manage to angle your turret enough to deny a HEATFS on the frontal turret part, the side of your turret becomes vulnerable. Leran the basics seriously. IS4M just like the Maus is totally useless at 7.7 however it cannot be penetrated frontally by the first 6.7 tank it comes across. For what is about measurements both US and RU actually had no clue how German welded their tanks and, as a result did not take the thickness of the weld into account and thats where the mistake comes from, german measurements of the V1 turret state 236 mm of RHA at gun level... Gaijin even got the type of steel wrong. 30° for horizontal pen vaue for the KwK is about right, the 90° and 30° are indeed underperforming. by rougly 35-40 mm At last, I'm not talking about the maus being in 7.0/6.7 games where it can effectively be a very powerful tank, however this almost never happens. 99% of the times it's doomed fighting HEATFS and ATGMS and is indeed useless at 7.7 both looking at the characteristics of the vehicle and the endgame meta.
  19. French military had no experience with these tanks both about how to operate them nor maintain them, however they were familiar with the US machines. Soviets who had more experince with Panther tanks managed to drive them over several hundreds of kilometers without any issues. Yes the Panther had it's flaws and was not as reliable as a Sherman or a T34. But it was not near as bad as some writters make it out to be
  20. That's a really great job godman82, however i do not see this being implemented anytime soon, too many flawed mechanic would need a huge rework before what you propose to actually work in a balanced way and make everyone happy and bring the balance back.
  21. Gaijin simply needs to add more long range combat maps now (fighting distances being commonly above 1000 meters) there is an enormous imbalance right now in terms of gameplay in RB being exclusively short/medium ranged fight where having a tank with powerful armor does not matter. hevay tanks became near useless in RB.
  22. I have to find the document again but serviceability of Panther yanks wasnt as bad as you mention. We also must consider the fact that Germans did not have time nor parts to maintain trheir tanks properly, such circumstances in which any other tank fielded in WWII wouldn't have done much better. Secondly, producing more tanks is one thing, having enough trained crew to put inside them is another subject, in this regard, the so clver and mighty regards of Guderian regarding tank production pushing for almost only Pz IV to be made falls apart. Producing more powerful and complex tanks able to fight effectively an ennemy superior in number was the only logical thing to do. What the Germans did not manage to get right in this context is another subject, like dismissing the MAN transmission design for the Panther, spare parts production lines and maintenance ease.
  23. Panther serviceability of the Panther managed to get near 70% fyi. Allied forces werent adapting faster than Germany, they simply had more men and ressources to spend end of. On the other side, german tank development followed a logical course if you exclude Superheavy prototypes like the Maus. Germans were very well aware of the fact that they could not match the production capabilities of the US and the Soviets and, in this context, producing only Panzer IV and Stugs would have been stupid, the only way you can overcome an ennemy superior in number and ressources is to actually make your own Worth more than the ennemies what germans actually did. What they messed up however were the production plans and spare parts production lines as well as logistic lines. What Germany should have done was to phase out all non-panther cahssis based vehicles as soon as spring 1943 like Tiger I, Panzer IV, Tiger II and such should never have seen the light of the day. They'd still have lost the war and it wouldnt have lasted much longer, Germany simply couldnt have won the war with Great Britain still being a threat at the West. For what is about the Br's it's much more blanaced both in planes and tanks than it was before, i'm simply being slaty bout the hull break mechanism being both unrealistic and inconsistant.
  24. yes but what he says is right, however i do not think the 6 Pdr had troubles getting through the front of the uparmored Pz III Under 500 meters
  25. I'm sure it'll come at 5.7 with APDS (balanced) :ok:
  26. Yet it's true, Germany had the atom bomb technology, grab some litterature Germans indeed detonated atom bombs of small size which they couldnt get bigger due to lack of essential material like uranium and deuterium whose Germans stocks got destroyed by british special forces in Norway. I advise you to read the book of Rainer Karlsch "The Hitler's Bomb"... Also planes like Me P1101 that clearly was 5 years ahead in terms of design carateristics and simply showed how allies were lagging behind in terms of Jet airplane design... US engineers even used German work from WWII to make their own swept wing design work.
  27. it is the best given it's RoF, penetration and damage output... However i still think it's not a solid 7.0 tank... It's saving grace for it to be still capable there is it's mobility.
  28. I've been playing the Maus since it got released and managed a 3/1 KD ratio in RB and SB until i stopped playing it... So excuse me tosay it but you are plain wrong. Maus is indeed useless where it sits, even 6.7 tanks can penetrate it's turret from more than 1 km away with stock ammo or APCR/APDS/HEATFS depending on the tank... One penetration to it's turret and it's dead meat since it's breech is laughably weak and takes forever to repair. Also at 7.7 the PaK 44 is a bad gun to fight against what it faces with low rof and low penetration when everyone is simply point and shooting with HEATFS. A gun at it's BR that needs to be fired at weak spots to be effective is not a good gun, while i'd not call the KwK 44 bad at 7.7 it's very subpar moreover you have nothing at your disposal to make up for this subparness whereas the IS4M still packs enough mobility to enter some flanking manoeuver if need be. one of the most powerful tank in the game ? For an ennemy team with aiming issue certainly... The thing has to fear literally everything it meets frontally both from close and long range due to laughably weak turret, sure you can angle the turret bt then you can't fight back... IS4M migh have a worst gun but at least does not have to fear the first 7.0 tank coming it's way which is the case with the Maus... Also the example you provided of the 5 players needed to take out a Maus, is, once more a display how bad the community is at the game. Maus is useless where it's sitting it's a 7.3 tank max RB talking and even there would suffer quite a lot due to how vulnerable it's turret is and how tight the maps are. Sure it's the best damage sponge in the game and ? That's pretty much it. If it got fixed and had it's 236 mm turret made of RHA, 300 mm of penetration with Pz GR 43 and corect turret rotation, it could stay at 7.7... Now ? even 7.3 is a lot for it given how flawed it is and how the meta have become between 6.7 and 7.3 with all these APDS and HEAT flying more and more around
  29. In aeronautics and atomic science, they had a substantial advance, they indeed possessed the atom bomb technology before the Americans but never had their hands on the essential materials to build one in sufficient quantities. In short they were more advanced in 75% of the domains that saw an insanely fast evolution after the war. Allies were more advanced than Germans in radars and communication.
  30. As I said each country had it's own doctrine... French tank units are still called "armored cavalry" and that's not for Nothing, The Leclerc until not long time ago with the production of the Leo 2A7 had an unparalleled ability to engage and destroy target while moving near it's crosscountry top speed even on rough terrain, however it's not as well protected as Chally/Abramps and even the Leo 2 which is sligtly more armored than the Leclerc. Abrams and Challenger II are better suited for very long range/urban engagement wether the Leo and the Leclerc are made for pure tank to tank combat as well as tactical mobility.
  31. I never implied that the Challenger 1 copied the Leopard 1, none copied the other, what lad the the development of 3rd generation MBT's is the T64 and it's variants. From there each country designed their vehicle according to their own requirements, looking at their existing respective MBT with the goal to ehance it's capabilities in all department. Abrams and Chally's share a lot of features, however Leopard 2 and AMX 56 Leclerc went their own way and are pretty the opposite of the American and British design trading the best protection avalaible for optimum mobility and offensive capabilities, two things Leopard 2 and AMX 56 Leclerc excel at.
  32. Guess what the T29 and T32 were. It's always the same thing, ennemy has Something powerful, must have Something similar.
  33. definitely wasn't certainly influenced the Abrams, and Challenger for sure however AMX 56 leclerc and Leopard II are the logical evolution of their respective ancestors one being itself the evolution of the Panther 1. However Chietian certainly did not influence German and French MBT, quite the opposite in fact.
  34. You literally do not have a single game in the Maus but yet think your opinion is legitimate about it ? Also dont tell me you face it often enough to know what it can and cannot do because NOBODY plays the Maus wether it is in RB due to it beinf utterly useless and underpowered or in SB due to unusable gunsight...
  35. In some ways... It's true
  36. It's because there is no point using it in it's current broken/underperforming (underperforming armor + bugged/underperforming mantlet, underperforming gun, underperforming turret rotation) state anyway... Pro tip, aim for the turret at gun level, kill two crew + the bugged breech and finish it. Chieftain also was a waste of time, bad reliability, bad mobility for it's time + bad armor against HEATFS. Shoulmdnt be in game i guess.
  37. Also not an excuse for it to be probably the most underperforming tank in the game Yes ? Sherman broke down, T34 broke down, T29 and T32 would have broken down quite a aswell and also were waste of time and ressources to a lesser extent than the Maus but still were. It deserves to be in the game but not in it's current state.
  38. it deserves to be in the game as much as the T29 or T32 or T92, get real. It existed and worked and had production plans started for it
  39. Easily the Maus, struggles to penetrate forntally anything it commonly faces, cannot flank to make up for it and dead weight armor. Maus in it's current state coumd work at 7.0 maximum but not higher, went from the best tank in game to the worst tank within 2-3 updates
  40. If the T32 can get a better armored version sitting at 7.3, i dont see why the Maus could'nt also go at 7.3 or be given 240 mm of armor on the turret and go 7.3
  41. You're aware that the Maus can be penned from the front from 1000 meters and more by any ammunition it'll see right ? Have you ever played the Maus ? I did quite a lot and I can tell you it'd do quite poorly even at 7.3 in it's current state.
  42. like asking why the conqueror went at 7.3 but not the Maus, or the IS4M ?
  43. If T64 and likes are to come, AMX 30 can fire OFL 105G2/G3 APFSDS ammunition able to penetrate 560 and 535 mm of armor at 90° and at point blank. More than enough to deal with any tanks packing composite armor, and if that's not enough the OFL 105F2 is a depleted uranium APFSDS that can penetrate 540 mm of armor at 90° but at 2000 meters
  44. It was slightly too good for 6.7 but it's definitely too weak for 7.0. T44-100 is way better than it having similar gun, but way better armour overall, much faster turret rotation, and much lower profile. People raged bout the Panther II because players actually played it as it was supposed to be, large flanking manoeuvers to take position on the flank of the ennemy team quickly and blow them up from the side. Fortunately it can still be played like that and is the only way to paly this vehicle, it's armor was bad even for 6.7 with only the UFP being good the rest was average with the turret being pure garbage only good to stop 85 mm APHE and 76 mm American shells which of course are not met anymore at this BR.
  45. It's not as much the map design as the map rotation that is totally off... the dices are totally shifted towards a short selection of maps being abandonned factory/eastern europe/berlin and frozen pass, none of which are enjoyable to play on nor realistic, my feeling is that I just play WoT with different graphics and without HP... Kursk, Large Mozdoki Volokolamsk, all dissapeared and I play on them maybe once every 100 games.
  46. RDX is more powerful than TNT... just saying, a 88 mm shell with 63g of RDX = 100 g of TNT. This exploding and sending shrapnels inside of a tank like a sherman or a T34 will kill most of the crew. Geram 88 mm was reported to kill 3 crew members on the average, KwK 40/42, two crew members. 122 mm and 128 mm were simply overkill, you dont need to blast every one inside a tank, if the driver and the gunner or commander are killed the tank cannot be operated effectively unless the MG can switch role inside the tank which unlike in the game doesnt take 8 seconds... APHE in the game perform mostly fine, the other shell howere are not simulated properly, especially for what is crew behaviour after openetration which is the real reason which makes APHE appear as OP The only way I can see this tank going to 5.7 is if they remove it's APCR round, Jumbo 76 with APCR is clearly superior in frontal engagement to any other tank at 5.7 due to it's armor which should be even stronger
  47. No it wont change at all actually for the sole reason that 6.7 tanks were almost never top tier since all games at 6.7 are capped at 7.0/7.3 since the downtier of IS3/T54-47. I personally do not worry too much about the T32 on 7.0... My jagtiger will simply get some more food, honnestly the conqueror on 7.3 is now the thing to look for it will certainly get spammed and this tank will probably be dominant now, that being said, with this tank on 7.3 I wonder why the Maus didnt have it's BR changed but ok, German line up is still very powerful
  48. pretty sure it's place holder... Will get changed someday
  49. That's plain wrong... When was the last time you've been toptier using any 6.7 tank ? And when was the last time you engaged ennelmies forntally in your panther II with that mobility and freaking huge silhouette ? 6.7 tanks are constantly being capped either at 7.0 or 7.3. This change wont affect the performance of the Panther II in anyway..if anything it's the Mk 10 that should go now to 7.3..however now you can have a line up as follows: Tiger II (H), Tiger II Sla 16 (if you have it), Panther II, Tiger 105, Jagdtiger (good counter to the T32) It's an isanely powerful and endurant lineup.
  50. IS3 would be OP at 7.0, it's impervious to every single ammo frontally (bar tiny weakspot) except 105 mm APDS and HESH form the MK 10.. Other than that IS3 is vastlu superior to Tiger II (H) T29 and even the T32 which it can pen frontally while being immune... It's fine at 7.3
  51. It's on 90 % perfect @Stona. However, 6.7 for Mk 24 is very harsh.. Better take it's 150 octane back and let it be at 6.3 Tiger E to 5.7 is very much appreciated Conqueror to 7.3 is a very nice move. P51D30... this one has no business at 4.7, should have been uptiered to 5.0 and D5 to 4.7 Maus and IS4M should also be downtiered to 7.3 they've been quite useless in RB for a while now. I think it's the biggest black dot in this overall change with IS3 and now conq being at 7.3, the Maus and IS4M should get there too logically. Consider it IS2 downtiering is fine along with the removal of their "unhistorical ammo" Panther II uptiering woult change much thing with the T32 being downtiered but at least it'll give USA/GER a pretty even line up granted people do own the T29. FW 190A5's should be brought to 4.3 they perform the same as the A4 Many many steps in the rigth direction only some little things missing