IMO the Pz 4 (H) is somewhat undertiered at 3.7. It could easily go to 4.0 and still do well.
1 Like
It could probably still do well but I can’t see myself taking it over the M4A2 in most cases.
Different Nations (see the thread on m10/Achillies)
There’s a german m4a2
I think I would rather play the Churchill Mk III too 😅
1 Like
What tank has a 5s reload other than US 75mm guns?
There’s the Challanger with solid shot and the PT-76.
US 76mm guns have 5.9s reload while almost every other APHE firing gun has a reload of 7.4/7.5s.
Even the Panther F has a 6.7s reload.
I would like to use it to compare with M4A1(fl10) or 3457, 4.5s reload time can’t let you shoot the second round when you first missed. The Chi-Ri’s armor and size make it pretty hard to survive. And I really don’t understand why Gaijin just nerfed the reload time for that
1 Like
Keep in mind that I’m talking about 3.3-5.3 BR range (which is where the Chi-Nu II is at).
If you look at the trend, reload time goes up the higher the BR you go until you reach ~8.0, in which case it starts dropping again. Probably because of the non-existence of super heavies and the introduction to Cold War MBTs.
Anyway:
The T-34-57 has a 5s reload.
ALL of the German tanks that uses the 75 mm KwK40 L48 (the 75mm from the 3.3 Panzer IV) have a 5.9s reload.
Pretty much all the Italian 3.7-4.7s have the same gun as the Panzer IV and thus a 5.9s reload.
The 40mm Churchill has a 4s reload whereas the 76mm Churchill has a 5s reload.
The Fireflies (including the Italian ones) also have a 5.9s reload.
The Avenger has a 5.6s reload.
The only notable nation that is generally worse-off at that BR range is USSR, but at least they have mobility and/or armour to avoid getting killed.
Hence why I’d say its 6.5s reload is abysmal, or at least sub-par.
Totally abysmal and non-historical
Chi-Nu II must have 6s reload with as minimum 4.0 br or even 3.7.
2 Likes
Once again, no, it isn’t. Many pilots irl went from Propeller Aircraft to jet engines; in fact, many are first taught on propellers before being trained on a Jet aircraft. This is so they can train and learn how to.
This can still apply to tank experience, if you had a WW2 crew who never aged till the modern day.
So they had the physical requirements needed to operate an M1 Abrams.
They would just be trained on the things they don’t know how to operate. But the prior experience from before hasn’t been forgotten.
It’s the knowledge of handling something more advanced.
Experience/Knowledge are different.
My experience and my knowledge of the Chi-Nu I-II, Chi-To’s, and Chi-Ri is sure slightly different, but it’s not that different. I need to just play it more safely and less aggressively.
Also, if we went by your logic that my experience is outdated, then a new player should be able to kick my ass; however, most never do cause they don’t know how to.
It was previously misunderstood that the belt ammo rack was an “alternative” autoloader. In fact, it appears that it was a supplemental feature to the autoloader.
The belt rack itself was just a feature to quickly pass rounds directly to the loader’s position and reduce the loader’s exertion, because the turret is cut in half by the autoloader.
It is not really new information, but rather the existing evidence was overlooked and misinterpreted for some years. While not explicitly stated, it is evident from the design drawings of the Chi-Ri that the belt ammo rack survived until the prototype stage.
(The tray itself is omitted in this particular diagram, likely for clarity)
7 Likes
I think you were misinterpreting what I was trying to say.
Let’s say you had a nice interaction with someone, or enjoyed driving the new car you bought.
You can say that you had a good experience with that person and that car.
Now let’s say that person now is more volatile and has a quick temper, or that the car now has problems with the transmission.
It’s correct to say that your past ‘good’ experiences with that person and car are now outdated.
Not sure if I should’ve said ‘personal experience’ but I didn’t mean ‘experience’ in that sense.
That being said,
Sure, the Chi Nu II may as well have been seal clubbing at 4.0 and even at 4.3 while it still had the 4.3s reload, but I am not arguing about that. I am saying it should be 4.0 because it now has a 6.5s reload. One of its main features (that 4.3s reload) is missing, so why should it still be at 4.3?
Your previous ‘good’ experience with the Chi Nu II is outdated since it no longer has what made it great in the first place.
Turns out it never even had a 4.3s reload, so you were just misremembering.
And from the last 7 months (of still using it apparently), 2 matches in the Chi-Nu II doesn’t seem like a good sample size to estimate how well it performs at 4.3:
Even I have more games, and I don’t main Japan 😅:
Chi-Nu II is just a Panzer IV H with a lot more explosive filler and slightly better muzzle velocity at the cost of a 0.6s longer reload. I can’t say that that warrants a 0.7 BR difference. Maybe 0.3 (Hence the fact that I’m advocating for it to be 4.0).
1 Like
I did a couple matches last night at 4.3 and got 14 kills twice lol. One of those was even a win! I think it’s fine, but the Chi-Tos should come down to 4.3.
1 Like
The Chi-Tos are better than the Chi Nu II. If you’re going to move them down to 4.3, surely you’d think that the Chi Nu II should go down to 4.0 too?
I don’t have any hard times in the Chi-Nu II so I really don’t think so. I think it is more deserving of 4.3 than the Chi-Tos are of 4.7. Chi-Ri would still be fine at 5.0, probably.
Chi-Tos are pretty much Chi-Nu IIs with improvements (big or small) in nearly every characteristic, particularly the Chi-To late with more angled armor that can resist US 75mm, Russian 76mm or German 50mm to the UFP. The only thing I believe they do worse is turret traverse, by a few degrees.
So I don’t see how the Chi-Nu II would be deserving of 4.3 while the Chi-Tos don’t deserve 4.7. Unless you mean to say they should be higher, not lower?
4 Likes
Ngl I am happy I ground through the Chi-Ri before this change. I found the 3.3 second reload comfortable for the first 3 shots and learned how to remedy the reload situation. Now though? I don’t wanna look at it.
1 Like
Chi-Nu II just works in a way that the Chi-Tos don’t. People don’t seem to notice or hear it as much. I’m doing much better stats-wise in the former at 4.3 than the latter two at 4.7.
I’ve been playing the the chi-ri and I can confirm it should at most be 5.3. it has a lot of trouble fighting heavy tanks regardless of up tier, and that is because it’s round isn’t ballistic capped witch makes it less effective against any heavy tank that angles just a little bit. Not to mention it’s size makes it a massive target, and that paired with it’s 3.0 armor makes it play like a light tank. Also it’s speed and acceleration is good is struggles to turn at low speeds or standing still, because of its long shape. It’s reload is also a problem as it should start off and let’s say 3.5 seconds for the first two reloads then decrease to 4.5 for the second two shots then 6.5 for the rest of its shooting undess u let the ready rack fill.
Agility: 2.7
Speed: 5.3
Reload:5.7
Armor:3.0
Turret traverse:4.0
Ammunition:4.3
Size:2.0?😭
Yea I’m pulling these numbers out of my as,s but still this tank got hard nerfed.
3 Likes
The engine RPM of Chi-Ri in-game is incorrect, and in fact, it is physically impossible for the tank to move at the speed of 45km/h with this RPM due to the physical characteristics of its suspension and transmission.
At the time Chi-Ri was built, Mitsubishi had calculated its top speed at 42km/h, which corresponds to 1800RPM. There is potential that the engine could be run even higher, as later speed figures tend to be 45km/h, but there is limited specific evidence. (in O-I, this engine’s RPM could be raised to 2200).
In WT, it is likely possible for the engine power to be buffed to at least 700PS, which appears to be its gross power at 1800RPM. This would give Chi-Ri a max PS/T of about 19, which is more in line with a light tank, significantly improving its mobility.
8 Likes
The problem is that gaijin are incredibly incompetent, they are probably the worst balancers i’ve ever encountered. If it were a public company it’s leadership would have been shitcanned a decade ago, if it was up to me they would get worse.
Nothing is going to change as long as the same inept people are the decision makers.
2 Likes