Agreed. A lot of these vehicles need to go down.
Italian low rank vehicles are prime examples of mediocre vehicles getting inflated BRs just because of how overpowered APHE damage can be. Comparing Italian 47 mm APHE stats to the Soviet 45 mm and German 5 cm APHE, it doesn’t seem like they’d deal significantly more damage, but they end up being more comparable to 75 mm APHE in practice. I’m not 100% sure they are working as intended.
Assuming the damage stays the same, I can see Gajin being hesitant to drop them down too far. Being able to consistently one-shot a tank every 2.9 seconds is admittedly, somewhat overpowered, so I wanted to include reload nerfs where need to balance out the BR change.
I didn’t touch simulator battle BRs at all since I don’t know what goes on in that mode.
M13/40 (I)
Ground AB BR: 1.7 → 1.3
Ground RB BR: 1.7 → 1.3
Everyone else gets their first medium at 1.3. The M13/40 (I) is already overall worse than the Pz.III F [BR 1.3] in almost every regard aside from post-pen damage, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be just fine at the same BR as it.
M13/40 (II) & (III)
Ground AB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
Similar rationale to M13/40 (I), just move up slightly due to the better reload and gun depression. Their improvements are already pretty subtle, so they shouldn’t be noticeably stronger than the current M13/40 (I) is at its current BR.
M14/41
Ground AB BR: 2.3 → 2.0
Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
The modest mobility improvement is nice, but not substantial enough to warrant a higher BR in realistic battles. Frankly, I’d still consider it overall worse than the Pz.III F [BR 1.3]. The arcade battle BR change would let it form a line-up with its Semovente counterpart and the Lancia 3Ro 100/17 without facing some of the rather strong vehicles populating 3.3, which it currently can’t do much against.
M15/42
Ground AB BR: 2.7 → 2.0~2.3
Ground RB BR: 2.7 → 2.0
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.6-3.5 s
I know this sounds like a pretty big BR change, but when you actually compare it to current 2.3 mediums, it still wouldn’t make much more sense there than it currently does at 2.7. The T-28E and Pz.III J are both faster, more survivable, and boast better guns. The Chi-Ha Kai [BR 2.3] at least has a comfortable gun that can stay competitive in uptiers, whereas the M15/42 would still struggle. Even the current Italian 2.3 TT medium, the Turan I, is overall more competitive than the M15/42 thanks to its better mobility and survivability, not to mention that it can bring a few APBC rounds to make it less helpless against heavier armor.
I’ve seen some secondary sources state the M14/42’s front hull armor is actually around 42-45 mm thick instead of 50 mm. If there is more found to confirm this, then that would solidify its spot at 2.0.
If Gaijin still really wants an Italian medium at 2.7, the P26/40 75/32 prototype can fill the spot just fine, assuming it doesn’t have EPS (or it could go to 3.0 with EPS).
M14/41 (47/40)
Ground AB BR: 2.3 → 2.0
Ground RB BR: 2.3 → 2.0
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.6-3.5 s
Bearing in mind the M15/42 changes, the M14/41 (47/40) would be a nice side-grade at the same BR, trading some armor and mobility for a respectable HMG to use against light vehicles.
AS 42/47
Ground AB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
Fix the scope offset
Fix horizontal gun traverse limits
Mobility is really all it has going for it. It easily dies to as much as a sneeze without proportional penetration to justify its current BR. There isn’t a lot that it can easily be compared to except perhaps the P204(f) Kwk 38 and BT-7M [Both BR 2.0], but it still is fairly clear there are other vehicles it competes with that have both more effective armament and survivability while still having good mobility.
I tend to just take the AS 42 20 mm in its place since it can do just about everything the 47 mm version can just as well, in addition to engaging aircraft, all while still sitting at a lower BR.
AB43
Ground AB BR: 2.7 → 2.0
Ground RB BR: 2.7 → 2.0~2.3
Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.8-3.7 s
I don’t think this is a bad vehicle, but it does struggle a quite bit in uptiers due to the poor penetration. The AB43 is currently at the same BR as the P204(f) Kwk 39/1 [BR 2.7] when it has more in common with the weaker P204(f) Kwk 38 [BR 2.0]. With a somewhat heavy reload nerf, I think it would be a fair sidegrade to the P204(f) Kwk 38, though it could also be moved to 2.3 as needed and still be better off than it is currently without being overpowered.
47/32 L40
Ground AB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
Ground RB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
Reload Speed: 3.9-3.0 s → 5.2-4.0 s
If the M13/40 moves down, I don’t think it makes as much sense to keep the Semovente L40 at the same BR, since it would lose its niche as the lowest BR vehicle with the 47/32 gun. Despite being based on a light tank, it’s not very mobile, and its 47 mm gun has far worse performance than other 1.3 SPGs like the Pzjgr.I and Lorraine 37L. Since it was not a very ergonomical vehicle, I believe it would be justified to nerf the reload in exchange for a lower BR.
75/46 M43
Ground AB BR: 4.7 → 4.3
Ground RB BR: 4.7 → 4.3
I see this vehicle as somewhat analogous to the Hetzer [BR 4.3]. Both are compact TDs with decent frontal armor, but otherwise poor survivability and mediocre mobility. Where the Hetzer has more uniform front protection and a larger crew, the Semovente M43 gets a lower profile and better gun. I therefore don’t see why the Semovente M43 needs to be placed any higher than it the Hetzer.
