When Playing the ARL’s I’ve notice something odd the one had weaker frontal armor whiles the later had more, whenever I play the ACl-1 Im expecting to have great front hull protect due to it being the same stats as the 44, as the later was an improvement only on the gun and turret only the hull remains the same so when I play or fight against it I find it to easy to kill it with anything above 100m penetration. So Im wonder to increase the ARL (ACL-1) HULL Armor to better help it fighting against 4.0-4.7 tanks.
ARL-44 loss of gun dep. I was skeptical to know that the real ARL-44 had only -5* instead of -10* I think it would be better to help the Tank performance to either return its original guns dep. or at least give it -8 as its still easily killable to anything it faces regardless of the neft of it elevations. Or the buff to the AP penetration buff
If you bring it to Gaijin’s attention, they’ll probably nerf them both even more and up tier them.
3 Likes
You need to prove its missing historical armor.
You need to prove its missing historical depression.
2 Likes
The ACL-1 represents the prototype ARL with the originally specified 75mm gun and 60mm plate. The ARL-44 is the actual production vehicle with the 90mm gun and 120mm frontal armor. The gun elevation is accurate to the vehicles.
6 Likes
this was done by someone who wanted them nerf with its gun elevation for being not real to the counter part by old manual script he found
Tho sadly someone has debunk it is more on gameplay rather than keeping it real with the IRL counter part as most with in its tech tree have at least having -8 for its tanks
You are aware that the turrets and guns are completely different between the two right?
It has its historical depression because it has a semi-autoloader system (for a 5s reload) that takes space. System which was not implemented (I made the report). So it is understandable that some are frustrated that they get the downsides without the upsides. Not even a reduction to 8s (similar to the Tiger’s reload speed) was accepted (despite asking for it). Despite having a much worse shell (solid shot) and turret profile (to be fair, it is always compared to a Panther in french docs, so the turret armour is ok).
3 Likes
I am aware but what I mention that should be the same was the hull armor not the guns
gameplay wise I just think it needs have some back for gameplay use as this is game, ARL-44 is one of few tanks within the French thats still better using with the limited tanks in rank 4
WoT is down the hall on the left.
It seems that, upon doing very cursory searching, the ARL-44s fitted several different guns, and if the first one is using a planned gun for its original specification, there’s really no excuse not to add the versions planned to mount the US 76mm M1 or British 17-pdr.
Also, France badly needs more heavies in general - I’d frankly like to see the ARL-44 at 5.3 be reclassified as a heavy tank and moved to that branch now that many other options are filling holes in that line where there used to be none. The ARL-44 at 5.3 is effectively a “French-flavored Panther” - featuring a somewhat strong hull, a weak but trolly turret face, paper-thin side armor, and not much reverse speed, with the same engine as the Panthers, no less.
5 Likes
Well the ARL-44 was a Heavy in IRL and In-game but was reclassified due the problems but I do agree we need more heavies. FCM 50T could also be but its only a drawn
1 Like
Depends on when you are referring to. Looks like it started as a heavy and later got re-designated to a tank destroyer in 1950. Kind of hard to say it should be a heavy when it was only a heavy for like 1 year.
I also dont see how changing it to a heavy will fix anything. If anything, it will nerf it due to the increase in SP cost. I would love to see some other french vehicles added to fill in their holes.
It’s such a shame that this vehicle, built after 1945, can’t even see Tiger IIs because Gaijin for whatever reason doesn’t want to give it the performance it should have.
But 1.0 APDS for Sweden was absolutely necessary. Same with planes using ammunition they never had.
1 Like
What I’m saying is that the ARL-44 doesn’t really belong in the TD line anymore. And given that there were multiple versions using different guns developed all within a short time period, we could conceivably have at least four versions in total, the current ACL-1, a 17-pdr version, a 76mm M1 version, and the current 90mm version with its assisted loading tray.
To be fair the ARL-44 is pretty slow and sluggish - its barely any more mobile than a Tiger II while having wet paper for armor for the most part. It used to be able to see them and got mauled.
Yeah but with a 5s reload and a 90mm that penetrates just as much as the Tiger IIs gun, it would still be an effective 6.0 or 6.3 vehicle.
Could be even higher when APHE finally gets nerfed.
Personally my biggest issue with the ARL-44 was the bad damage of the solid shot compared to APHE combined with the unnecessary long reload time.
Sure the round can knock out a tank in one shot from a good angle but it’s still a major downgrade to APHE and solid shot with a longer reload then APHE firing cannons never worked out well.
2 Likes
The combination is indeed not great. Though it seems as if solid shot isn’t quite as bad as it has been ever since the update. Maybe the change in server fragment count also (probably unintentionally) helped here?