Oh no, not the mighty Churchill Mk VII, which is so common and a huge threat to your team with it’s solid shot 75mm cannon.
Who you think is gonna get more kills?
A Churchill Mk VII with 75mm solid shot, 20kph max speed and 8.5hp/t ratio, or an EBR with APHE and can actually get into position to shoot enemies.
Even if NO tank could penetrate the Churchill, it wouldn’t matter.
The others would still get more kills.
The Churchill would get disabled (tracked, barrel broken) so many times while the other tanks will happily kill each other with APHE or +150mm penetrating solid shot.
Or are you going to make me believe that a Churchill is going around killing Panthers and Tigers?
Yeah it goes down a bit as people use the Crocodile, and you sidestepped the whole Tiger thing but then again I’ve seen a lot of people use the VII, I’ve never seen someone think the EBR 1951 deserved 5.3 so if it’s a numbers game…
Nah Tigers are easy. Their turrets are rounded so from the side and back you can always penetrate them.
Not to mention that they only have 60-80mm on the side, pretty much worse than a 3.7 KV-1.
H1s can be killed through the cupola.
It’s not a tank destroyer. It’s a fast light tank. You obviously won’t be killing heavy tanks left and right but that’s not your job. You can take them out when they are distraced or simply move into a position which allows the EBR to take them out.
In general are heavy tanks your least concern since both Tiger and IS-1/2 have slow turret traverse and mobility compared to mediums at that BR.
So mediums are easier to take out from the side but when they spot you they are a bigger threat.
Here’s an anecdote:
There’s a character in a board game which I always disliked because I felt like he was underpowered compared to the others. Never had great success with him.
But then I changed my approach, maybe got a bit lucky as well, and scored the highest number of points I ever achived with any character.
Rethinking my previous statement how the character was inherently worse than the others.
It’s the same with the EBR. I used the FL 11 with very good success at 3.7/4.0 and couldn’t imagine how a 5.3 vehicle with the same gun would be any improvment.
And yeah, I’ll most likely end up with less kills per game using the EBR at 5.3 compared to the FL 11. The difference is that the EBR allows you to cap points early, reach cap points fast in later changes of the match as well as scout more efficently due to it’s better mobility.
A Puma at the same BR is inherently worse due to the 50mm having much lower one-shot potential and a much lower turret traverse.
If both can penetrate the same target in the same situation the EBR will always be more efficent.
People use the Puma at 5.3 matches so how can the EBR be garbage when it’s simply superior.
It’s only because the Puma is 3.3 and players actively put it in higher BRs on their own while the EBR has no choice but play 5.3.
This whole thread is basically just “why can Germans have Puma at 3.3 while my French Puma is 5.3 and fights much tougher tanks”?? Unfair!!!
I’d say the whole thread is more: why can Germans have faster Puma at 3.3 and Americans have stabilized M24 at the same BR and Russians have BT7-75 around that as well (all of which are inherently superior to the first EBR) and EBR is at an unplayable BR? Yes, it’s literally unfair because in this game, the expectation is that vehicles with approximately the same stats should be approximately at the same BR. But French vehicles are systematically at 0.7 to 2.0 BR higher than vehicles of other nations with the same or similar stats. Because the initial expectation is wrong: Gaijin does NOT put similar vehicles at the same BR. It puts vehicles with similar performances in game at roughly the same BR. In other words, the BR ranking takes into account (mostly) the average player skills… Hence the EBR being at a completely unfair position.
Oh yeah, whats so superior about all of them?
Literally the only oustanding superior feature of all of these vehicles is the M24s low speed stabilizer, yet it doesn’t have the mobility of the EBR.
The AMX-13 (FL-11) is also at a higher BR and I manged to get better results with it than the M24, despite the lack of stabilizer.
So it’s the most comparable to the EBR 1951 in terms of performance and combines the strenghts of the AMX-13 with the wheeled performance of a Puma, being able to get in and out of positions very quickly.
Now 5.3 might be stretching it but 4.7-5.0 would be completely reasonable.
It is simply the best light tank below 5.7.
Gaijin said, “If it reaches the BR of the AMX-13.” which it did to absolutely no-one’s surprise, and now it’s “If statistics indicates that it needs it.”. That’s a fancy way of saying never, because by nature the EBR 54 is a competitive, everyone that isn’t able to play it dropped it when it started it’s ascension, thus it will never see it’s stats drop enough for Gaijin to think it needs a buff.
At least they changed the POT-51A to APBC, it’s something…
I mean you can put Puma in almost any BR and if you are skilled enough you can almost always side-shoot someone and kill them. From my experience, the only real difference between Puma and EBR is the turret traverse speed. Their penetration is almost the same, but EBR’s ammo trajectory is like a trebuchet. You said that mobility is the key, and Puma can also reach a desired location as a light tank.
(Below is from my experience, Finished French and just started Germany)
Puma:
Much better ammo trajectory
Better acceleration
Faster reload
EBR:
Fast Turret Traverse speed
Better Side armor so you wonèt get taken out by 50 cal
Better round (only amount of explosive but not penetration)
With those being listed, I do think EBR shouldn’t belong to 5.3. The biggest difference between it and Puma is the turret’s traverse speed. You can put both Puma or EBR at 6.0 and meet IS2, Both of them can shoot its commander turret to kill it, but a hellcat can just shoot through IS-2’s side. It is not what one vehicle can achieve, it is more about how easy you can do it compared to other tanks in a similar BR.
BTW I think the reason AMX 13 is higher than Puma and M24 is reasonable is because of its structure (the engine eats lots of shots) but not in the case of EBR.
Won’t get taken out by 50 cal ? That literally happens every game …
I have a lot of fun with the EBR but it is really really bad. The only interesting thing compared to other French tank is the explosive filler, but it would be useful if the shell actually penned.
Panther is only vulnerable from the side but that’s if your shell doesn’t get eaten by the great volumetric system. You can only kill the Tiger from a 90° angle and under the track. Let’s not even talk about the soviet heavies that you just can’t pen anywhere …
I did include this “ * Better round (only amount of explosive but not penetration)”, but I would say better reload and ammo trajectory made up for it, and most of the time it is just one shot dead. Plus within Puma you got 4 sec reload, you have all the one in the world to get your second shot off. While in ebr you really just have one chance.
But you will notice that there are a lot of 75mm guns above even 4.0, while there is no 50mm or similiar at higher BR.
Trajctory hardly matters in that case. They are both light vehicles. You won’t be taking a fight with 4.0+ medium from the front, so hitting the side matters the most, which isn’t hard to to do with the 75mm.
Much better ammo trajectory → Hardly matters
Better acceleration → Hardly better
Faster reload → Doesn’t matter because the 75mm is the superior tank killing gun at any BR
In no situation would you be better in the Puma than in the EBR.
If you’re going to flank than killing tanks in one shot while also being able to put your guns faster on them matters light years more than having higher velocity.
A Puma is always at a higher risk of being killed because it’s more vulnerable from the side and any shot is very likely to hit the engine, making escape impossible.
I like the 5.3 EBR more than the Puma, definitely more survivable but wow……yeah….gun is pretty bad. I swear I bounce more shots with that than comparable guns too, even side shots. Maybe it’s coincidence idk, but I think it would be better at 4.7 or 5.0.
Having it at 4.7 or 5.0 would be nice to put it in a line-up with the M4A4 (SA50), since it makes no sense to play 5.0 France just for that one medium tank.