ARL-44 and ACL-1 increase of dep. and armor buff

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

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

2

If you bring it to Gaijin’s attention, they’ll probably nerf them both even more and up tier them.

3 Likes
3

You need to prove its missing historical armor.

You need to prove its missing historical depression.

2 Likes
4

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
5

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

6

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

7

You are aware that the turrets and guns are completely different between the two right?

8

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
9

I am aware but what I mention that should be the same was the hull armor not the guns

10

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

11

WoT is down the hall on the left.

12

Blitz is much better

14

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
15

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.

16

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
19

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
21

I’d rather see Solid shot overall just get buffed.

But I have no hopes of this happening.

22

All rounds are now more likely to blow up ammo.
I got a lot more kills (one-shots) with 90mm HEAT-FS against all sort of tanks.

The Fox is also proof. APDS with 100mm pen instantly blowing up a tank with a hit in ammo was almost never going to happen before the update.

23

The 76mm M1 was always just a misinterpretation of the gun of the ACL-1 prototype, it was never actually planned for it. You can find plenty of poorly cited pages online saying the ACL-1 had the 76mm M1.

I also don’t believe the ARL was ever planned to mount the 17pdr and I’d be curious to know your source for that.

Here’s a very good article detailing the history of the ARL-44. No mention of any other guns. Tank Archives: The Last of the Char B

1 Like
24

The main things Gaijin need to change is the reload time.

Both ARLs use an assisted reloading system.

It’s here, it’s modeled in 3D, it even served as a reason for a “recent” nerf on the maximum degree in wich the gun can aim lower, BUT they never counted it for the reload time…

Both ARLs should reload around 6s afaik for the turret ammo storage, it would be a really cool buff.

2 Likes