Well, that’s just a case of preference. The T25 undoubtedly has superior armour and far superior firepower.
I’d disagree with the “massive” decrease in mobility, the speed is essentially identical and while it does take a hit in Hp/tonne ratio it doesn’t have a huge impact IME on mobility. It’s mostly balanced out by the roof armour alone. The access to HEAT is a huge advantage- the M36 can penetrate the majority of the vehicles it faces, especially with APCR. The M36B2 can penetrate every vehicle it faces easily, usually without needing to aim at weak spots.
The two are extremely comparable.
Here’s the penetration for their APHE rounds at 500m at 0 and 60 degrees:
M1: 133mm, 48mm
L/48: 130mm, 47mm
L/43: 123mm, 45mm
The L/48 is has functionally identical penetration to the M1. The L/43 has a bit lower flat pen but only a couple mils lower sloped pen.
While the M62 does have more filler than the PzGr 39, but both are sufficient to single-shot knock out a tank most of the time.
The turret is thin, but it’s also relatively small. The hull armour with tracks is quite good, protecting the Panzer IV from centre-mass shots from most guns it faces at its current BR.
I agree except for the 76mm being significantly better. That’s why I’m not asking for the IV H to be the same BR, but .7 lower than the M4A1. Instead of the same BR as vehicles such as the M4, Cromwell, or M24 as it currently stands.
The difference in reload isn’t a huge deal, nor is the depression. A vehicle that trades dramatically increased penetration (172/59mm at 500m, see above for M1) for decreased post-pen and moderately decreased mobility doesn’t deserve a whole 1.0 BR lower. Especially when that means vehicles such as the KV-1 L-11 or standard M4s are expected to fight this beast. Again, I’m not arguing for the two to be the same BR, but .7 different.
I was including the Comet in the vehicles that I believe ought to move up, as it has excellent speed, great firepower, and a trolly turret. It’s probably the vehicle I believe has the least qualification for an increased BR, but it’s a lightly armoured vehicle with minimal reverse rate which is the category of ground vehicles I struggle the most with so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.
Fair points, but I find the lower profile and improved forward mobility of the SU-100 and especially its hull traverse and reverse rate make the SU-100 actually better than the Jagdpanther overall. Certainly it’s a lot more similar in design and performance to the Jagdpanther than Panzer IV/70.
The FL-10 is a great vehicle. The M4A4 SA50 does lose the excellent autoloader, but it gains a bit more survivability (especially the turret) and access to the POT-51P round with 180/61mm penetration. This is one of the most powerful shells at the BR, and closer in (flat) penetration to the KwK 43 than the 76mm M1!
The ARL-44 has a decently protected turret, with 110mm armour. I find it blocks more shots than its stats would suggest. And 10s is quite fast-firing when you compare it to other full-calibre weapons with similar penetration around the BR, such as the D-25 and D-10. I don’t see any reason this should be the same BR as the T1E1 and lower than an IS-1 or Tiger H1.