Incredible how french players managed to put this thing 2.0 br higher than the puma which you wouldnt be stupid to say is a better light tank. Bit slower max speed and turret traverse but better hp/ton ration way better reload similar pen on aphe and access to apcr.
Its also 1.7 higher than AMX-13-M24 which is 3.7 that is even better than M24 and AMX-13(FL11) but its a premium so no higher brs for it. People have hard time to find a tank more overtired that EBR 1951 i dont think i found any person that enjoyed it after it was moved up very fast.
4 Likes
Well, here’s one.
The EBR 1951 beats the Puma in pretty much any metric.
And yeah you can easily take M24s, FL 11 or any variant into 5.3 battles and still get good results.
It’s the nature of light tanks that don’t rely on armor to do well.
But it’s clear that the EBR is much more capable than the other light vehicles due to having a fast reverse speed, meaning better chance of survivale as well as better chances to get into firing positions.
4.3 and it was the most busted vehicle at the time
Like what metric? I just provided a list showing why those 2 light tanks are pretty comparable despite being 2.0 brs apart. I didnt mention is but puma also has 90kmh reserve speed so not sure why u mention that also puma can probably accelerate faster. You can like argue 2.3 second longer reload for better filler is worth at higher brs.
Anyways other light tanks dont suffer like EBR for having bad gun for br. Thats mostly a heavy tank trait like Jumbo 75 at 5.3 Curchill VII at 4.7. while at 5.7 u have M18 an excellent light tank with 76mm gun only 0.3 higher than the EBR 1951
2 Likes
Obvious brs should be M24 3.7, AMX FL11 3.7, AMX 13 24 4.3-4.7 and EBR 19514.3-4.7 seems reasonable considering current brs and actual vehicles not sure why only 1951 gets insane br treatment out of those
1 Like
also good luck with it stock. what can u do then when u see an IS-1 which is at your own br? pen flat side at 50 meters away at perfect angle? pen his rear? You cant. :D
At longer range it also becomes immune to APHE.
Jumbo is fitted for facing a 5.3 heavy because of stab, armour and apcr. This light tank despite being able to flank somewhat well cant. You have better flankers around at 5.7 anyway like M18 that doesnt need perfectly flat side to deal with heavy tanks side armour.
1 Like
The M18 is much larger, has terrible gun stability and is open top, apart from having even less armor at the front.
I’ve never seen a M18 actually performing decently in a game for the last 5 years.
EBR vs Puma
- 26°/s traverse vs 14°/s
- 75mm APHE vs. 50mm APHE
- 75mm HE vs. 50mm HE
- 16mm side armor vs 8mm
- Turret from 60-100mm vs. 32mm
- Back as strong as front vs. 10-20mm armor
- Can’t get overpressured vs. can be overpressured by 75mm HE shells
- Engine near transmission vs engine the size of a house
- 5.8x zoom vs. 3.5x
The EBR is way more survivable (hulldown, strafing etc), deals more damage per shot and also gets it’s gun faster on target. Apart from the RoF, which is negated by the higher post-pen damage, the EBR is the superior vehicle.
And since we see hardly any improvements in side armor between 3.3 and 5.3, the gun is perfectly capable of knocking out tanks.
1 Like
“EBR good cause below 500 meters it can penetrate IS-1 side at perfect angle!!! Lets ignore any frontal or angle engagements just perfectly flank!!!”
That’s how you sound to me mate. Not sure why u just cant accept it being bad after gaijin pushing it up a whole 1 br.
Oh cmon
pretty sure i provided much more important characteristics for a light tank. “but better hp/ton ration way better reload similar pen on aphe and access to apcr.”
Zoom not needed since u need to be close to pen tanks u face! Beyond 500 meters u cant pen IS-1 with any round!
Armor is less relevant since you are a light tank and better armor 2.0 br higher doesn’t matter since you face more heavy mgs and cannons but yeah ebr is more survivable for a light tank.
75 HE is nice but Puma HE has more pen so it doesnt really much for overpressure in fact puma can probably do more with its 50mm HE.
I already mentioned the worse turret traverse.
You ignore the obvious pros Puma has i brought up that affect gameplay a lot more.
Even with metrics u presented the 2.0 gap is not justifiable. I said its not stupid to think Puma is better LT and i stand by that and your arguments bounce off that pretty much. I think by now u even you can see these are not that much apart.
Oh lets ignore Churchills, Tigers, IS-1, IS-2, KVs, Cents, Jumbos, M26, You are using fin 1.7 shell to fight a Late ww2 heavies. You saying that only way to play is to be point blank and perfect angle to pen some of these tanks ignoring actually battle gameplay that doesn’t always allow that. Flat pen at 0 meters can take you only so far.
You are making shit up at this point calling M18 bad even though it had its br raised as well…
Not sure there’s any more point discussing since u fail to see obvious flaw in EBR 1951 place in war thunder. I presented so many arguments why 5.3 is too high and you answer by nitpicking M18 weaknesses while ignoring its strengths and using “trust me bro M18 bad i dont see gud players arguments”. Really not sure what do you want to prove to me. If i say look at PT-76 at 5.3 with 200pen heat autoloader and stab you will again make some shit up about it being bad.
Really dont understand that out 100 light tanks in game u think ebr is the one not allowed to engage huge amount tanks it faces frontally cause it lacks the firepower. Only tanks that were doing that were removed from being french reserve tanks.
2 Likes
before u bring up more, Puma has more depression, you ignore 50mm gun shield, more elevation, you ignore 50 cal proof front same as ebr, more smoke. Like I can do that too but it doesnt get us anywhere.
EBR 1951 is garbage because both Upgraded variants are exclusive.
1 Like
also I take back Puma HE being more useful they are both are pretty much same. 50mm HE is actually semi armor piercing so only would allow to overpressure more vehicles in very rare conditions.
They have the same side armor as 3.7-4.7 KV-1s. Sometimes even less.
Also whats with that whining about the IS-1. So you can’t pen an IS-1 most of the time. Big deal.
In every match I kill a Tiger or Panther with a side shot.
It’s a fast light tank that can one shot tanks when the round penetrates. It doesn’t need to pen everything in every situation because it has the mobility to get into positions as well as get out of them.
Why do I need to make things up? They have obvious strenghts and weaknesses. But you just take specific strenghts of other vehicles and use them as argument that this makes the EBR bad, which it isn’t.
There’s a huge difference between low tier tanks firing solid shot or APCR that are slow and can’t even take out vehicles in one shot when they pen because the post-pen is so bad or a vehicle that has superb mobility and will one shot any 5.0-6.0 medium from the side.
The difference is that I’m realistic.
You put the EBR on the same level as the Puma, which it isn’t since it’s a lot more capable.
The difference in mobility is minimal, the RoF doesn’t make up for the higher post-pen damage of 75mm APHE. What’s the point of RoF when after the first shot the target is alive and gets away?
Anyone who puts the 50mm on the same level as the 75mm is delusional.
The APCR becomes useful maybe once in 30-40 kills. The post-pen damage is so low that it’s hardly worth taking just for a few selective vehicles.
What matters are these three things that make the EBR more effective:
- Post-pen damage is higher
- The gun traverse is nearly twice as fast
- Survivability is much higher due to overall better armor and module layout
man whatever call ebr good if u do a little search u can see a lot of people agree with me on that the 5.3 is too much for that tank.
Me taking pummer to 5.3 is a maybe a bit too much sure
Do you think puma at 4.7 sound more reasonable considering what we “disscussed” and current br of ebr?
Yes i bring up every one of usual light tanks super strength of being able to pen stuff reliably not needing to have super good angles. M24s being able to reliably pen T34 turrets so incredible but god forbid EBR can reliably pen panther/sherman/T34-85 turret. You are nowhere near realistic about of getting reliable pens on usual tanks u face that arent giving you a pennable angles.
Guess what other light tanks such as chafees, pumas, amx-13s, M18, bulldogs, AMDs, Crusaders, ratels, Bts, Stuarts,PZ.2s dont have that issue because they armament is actually PROPER for their br and can engage enemies more freely which makes them BETTER while having similar worse or better flanking abilities for br.
I dont know how do you not see that its unfair.
Puma is obviously good even with a major nation playerbase playing it that gave it uptier from 2.7 to 3.3 now. and can probably go higher. EBR has no need to go even higher next br change…
Maybe actually play the tank more before making such claim and back them up.
once again ignoring every other light tank in game thats not as limited to doing that! except for removed stuff like amc.34
also you ignore the player feedback here and pretty much saying “get gud”
once again you ignore M18 doing everything much better and not giving any anwser why is there only 0.3 difference between the two.
M18 can pen frontally from range unangled heavies at its br. as an example can punch through panther in small spots. In uptier it can use apcr to kill Tiger 2 gunner through a small spot if you have the aim and apcr loaded. Thats what a normal Light tank interaction can look like and does but you dont think that should apply to EBR. Why not? Why is it u think amx-13 FL11 on wheels is fine 1.3 br higher?
I guess u think FL11 needs to go to 4.7 as well, AMX-13-M24 to 5.3 and M24s to 4.3? If thats what u think sure thats quite a take to have.
Once again not being able to engage enemy in most situations dictated by game flow etc. Is pretty fucking BIG weakness i dont know. That no other light tank has as bad as EBR 1951. How do you fail to realise light tanks dont have to be that one dimensional.
And you are still saying EBR is fine despite no proof to back that up community disagreeing with you (steam reddit, this forum threads about it) and when a lightly angled Tiger E pushes EBR player you say “skill issue” should ve just flanked! despite many situations and maps that can happen and many other tanks at your br that can just laugh at you if they have decent battle awareness and say you are being realistic. Once its spotted only thing u have to do is turn the tank a bit to counter it. While when facing other light tanks you need to actually angle and make sure they are not a threat and position better.
Jumbo cant pen angled Tiger E frontally does it make it bad? No! it can load apcr. use its stabiliser. use its armour use its mobility advantage. Oh and once again you ignored tracks being more reactive than wheels for M18 argument. Like i really have no idea why u defend gaijin ruining a tank.
I ll stop here let maybe other discuss if anyone even wants at this point I ll answer to you in pms since im already not being civil on the forum trying to make you see EBR shouldnt be 5.3 in no universe.
All EBR models are ridiculously overtiered. And since the clearly biased @KillaKiwi brought up the gun stability of the M18, may I remind him that the gun stability (and depression and elevation) of the EBR is even worse. And, even more importantly, EBR can’t rely on a backup 0.50 cal to get rid of other light vehicles or planes.
1 Like
Stability refers to the gun being stable enough to fire on the move or when coming to a halt.
The M18s chassis rocks back and forth during acceleration and deceleration, making it very hard to quickly get a shot off when moving the vehicle.
And how am I biased? Few months ago I also didn’t think that the EBR would be any significant improvement over the FL 11 at 4.0 but after analysing the capabilities I came to the conclusion that the EBR is indeed more effective.
Nameley reverse speed, which plays a huge factor in staying alive and getting into firing positions.
If you can reverse 20m in 3s to get into a position to fire at the enemy, that’s a kill, which you won’t get when it takes you 10s to get into the same position and the enemy is already out of sight.
Not to mention the ability to reach capture points very fast, which is an important factor in winning games.
You’re conveniently leaving out 17.9hp/t compared to the EBRs 16hp/t which isn’t much better than Ratel which is 14.9hp/t (ratel being an example of a slow car).
And yeah as for M18, 76mm can reliably side pen 5.3 tanks, 75mm just can’t, Churchill VIIs and Tiger Is and even Tiger II Ps are going to be fairly common and you can penetrate them only at close range and ideal angles, making that extra sight zoom useless as well.
Not that the EBR 1951 is unusable but I’d genuinely much rather take out the M24 or Marmon Herrington SARC Mk VI 6 Pounder at the same BR, and they are much lower BR vehicles.
I mean even within France, AMX-13 DCA 40 is an AA with nearly as much penetration as that 75mm, and it’s 4.3.
1 Like
And? Is it nearly as fast and can scout others?
What’s that suppose to prove?
If you think a tank needs to be able to kill every vehicle it come across, then you’re mistaken.
If you can’t kill 20% of the vehicle you fight but can shoot 50% more often due to being able to get into a position to do so, you’re way more effective than a vehicle than can pen 100% of vehicles but misses 50% of the chances to do so.
1 Like
From the side? You don’t think actual combat tanks should be able to side penetrate multiple common tanks at it’s BR? Find me a single German light tank that can’t side pen any tank in it’s BR range, even Doom turtle (M41 can do that)