P40 has 75mm. But still, each shot has 270g tnt inside which is 100% kill in case of pen.
I would still take 90mm because not only it obliterates tanks even by getting into engine compartment but also it has plenty of penetration. At br as low as 3.7 on 90/53 m41.
1 Like
which one’s the 90 mil with 347 g then? Dont leave me hanging bro…Breda???
AMX-32s are kinda sad but they get thermals + ESS, a 20mm coaxial, and better reverse speed at the cost of gun depression, sight, acceleration, and round.
The AMX-32 (105) should be fine being at 9.3 with the T-72A and Leopard 1A5.
The AMX-32 (120) is pracitcally better in every way over the AMX-32 (105) and is already at 9.7. We need to just move the rest of the overperforming 9.3s up as well.
That would include the AMX-30 Super and the OF-40 MTCA.
2 Likes
90/53 m41 at 3.7, breda 90/53 at 4.0 and breda 501 at 5.0
Crazy. I might need to go back to lowish tier italy for some matches now.
To be fair, TTS is pretty good at 9.0.
1 Like
It’s very good for 6.7, but I think the Tiger II Hs should have went up to 7.0 too.
They should’ve just moved up the Tiger II H and T26E5 up and kept the Tiger II P at 6.7. It shouldn’t be facing 5.3 tanks.
1 Like
5.3 tanks can still lolpen the Tiger II Early’s turret front. Even stabilized Shermans can be a real nuisance to deal with when playing CQB maps.
I’m a big fan of the M36 and I played it a ton back when it was 6.3, I had absolutely no issues dealing with Tiger II’s on a consistent basis.
T26E5 and Tiger II Production -vs- Leopard 1, Centurion Mk.10, Object 906, Type 69, AMX-30, etc. is kinda rough too.
I mean, that’s true. But that’s what the Tiger II P sacrifices to have pretty good hull armour, a great round, good reload, and smoke grenades.
It completely invalidates other heavy tanks’ armour at 6.3, let alone at lower BRs.
You can’t really angle the turret with the Tiger II P (especially not with the cupola-side), but you can make it so that it’s enough to stop the 76mm / 85mm present on many tanks:
Not to mention that bushes can also play a role in making it difficult to tell where the front cheek begins and where the side turret armour begins. It’s just not really fair for the average player to be honest with you.
Same here, though I wasn’t playing them when they were 6.3.
I tried out the Italian and Japanese M36s somewhat recently (around 3 months ago, before they got their 7.0s reload buff for whatever reason) and they had good enough mobility, great gun handling, and a very nice gun for the BR (especially the 5.7 ones with access to HEATFS if needed).
(The American M36B2 sucks because it doesn’t have the upgraded engine power of the Japanese / Italian one.)
I don’t really mind seeing Tiger II (P)s or Tiger II (H)s in them, but I’d also say that I didn’t really mind seeing the T26E5 either. Their guns and mobility are very good for their BRs, but I can’t really say the same for other tanks at 5.7 / 5.3… especially not heavy tanks like the Jumbo (75mm).
I don’t think the Jumbo 75mm should move down to 5.3 though.
It is rough, yes, though I wouldn’t say it’s nearly as rough as something like the Jumbo 75mm vs Tiger II H and T26E5.
1 Like
It’s better to have great turret armour but useless hull armour, than to have great hull armour and useless turret armour.
And yes, like I said earlier: The gun is the primary significant advantage it’s got over the majority of it’s opponents, it really is a great gun, but the problem is that your opponents don’t struggle to kill you in return.
You’re sacrificing a lot only for it to not be significantly more difficult to kill in return.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s a bad tank, but it used to be significantly better back when it was 6.3 with the 700 hp engine and no ammo in the turret.
That’s true for all of these heavies.
An IS-2 '44 doesn’t care about lower BR’d armour either, and even the T26E5 will munch Panthers, Tiger 1’s, Tiger II Earlies, IS-2 '44’s, IS-1’s, etc despite it ‘only’ having around 185mm of pen.
The Tiger II Early also faces constant up-tiers, and the T26E5 is only 0.4 BR above it and will happily absorb it’s long 88 all day long.
That goes for any heavy tank, it’s not unique to the Tiger II Early.
I don’t put bushes on the front of my turrets as that’s cheesy, but I do place them in historically accurate spots like the UFP, and good luck to any Panther, T-44, IS-2 or Tiger players in telling exactly where my MG port is:
BR compression FTW.
Found this one in my old Mobility Chart:
That reduction from 700 hp to 600 hp was crippling, it really did destroy this thing’s mobility.
3 Likes
For sure, though it’s also better to have great hull armour and mediocre turret armour than to have usless hull armour and turret armour (like if you’re fighting the Jumbo 76mm 😅). Though to be fair, at least the Jumbo 76mm gets a better reload and a stabilizer.
Well that’s what I’m trying to say. The Tiger II (P) at 6.7 was the balanced version of what the Tiger II H (especially the SLA) is. I think I showed you already but there has already been a player who had managed to get a 10 KPS in the Tiger II (SLA), which is ridiculous if you ask me. The only real drawback the Tiger II (P) has at 6.7 is the lack of raw frontal turret armour, and the current mobility it has. That’s reasonable for 6.7 given all the benefits it gets in my opinion.
Having a high-velocity, ~237mm pen, 100g of TNT, 7.5s reload round is very good coupled with great hull armour, good gun handling, and good gun depression. It doesn’t feel like it should be in the same league as the IS-2 (1944), which has worse gun handling, much worse gun depression, much worse reload, arguably worse hull and turret armour, worse survivability (3 crew members in the turret + 1 in the hull instead of 3 crew members in the turret + 2 in the hull) and less smoke grenades (smoke barrels rather)… for better acceleration, a 50.cal, 1-shot APHE, and a better reverse speed.
It also seems like an equal to the T34, which has twice as long of a reload for an AP round that (while has great penetration) often requires centre-mass hull shots or ammunition racks to kill, and worse hull armour than the Tiger II. The T34 gets better turret armour, 3x 50.cals, better gun depression, and general mobility in return, though.
The IS-2 (1944) doesn’t have a 7.5s reload though. The T26E5 may be able to munch on Tiger 1s and Tiger II Ps but that’s why I’m saying it should go to 7.0 and not stay 6.7.
The Tiger II (P) can munch on 6.3 heavies way more easily than what the T26E5 can against other 6.7 heavies, let alone 7.0 heavies.
Well, I wouldn’t really say so.
The average player would definitely struggle against the T26E5, but I find that competent players with the long 88mm don’t struggle to penetrate the T26E5. You don’t even have to shoot the cupola or MG port:
I think bushes should be toggleable since they do indeed have a P2W aspect.
And yes, it’s true that bushes can help with almost any heavy tank, I’m just saying that it isn’t impossible to make the Tiger II P’s turret armour work 😅
Indeed.
Which is exactly why I would personally pick the 76 Jumbo over the Tiger II(P) any day of the week.
2 Likes
I mean, back when the Tiger II (P) and Jumbo (76) were both 6.3, I remember playing the Jumbo 76mm over the Tiger II (P) and winning most engagements in SQB. But you have to consider the fact that it’s largely because CQC can heavily favour the Jumbo over the Tiger II P (which is often what most WT maps are). That being said, I’d say the average player would probably find the Tiger II P much easier to play with than the Jumbo 76 (as you can hear with all the complaining about the Jumbo 76mm being at 6.3 instead of 6.0).
It’s like saying (though I’m exaggerating here) that I’d rather be in a Leopard A1A1 over the T-72A in most CQC situations (obviously makes sense – the Leopard A1A1 has a better reload if you ace crew it, and you have a much better reverse speed than the T-72A)… but I’m pretty sure the T-72A should stay at 9.3, and the Leopard A1A1 should stay at 8.7.
The Jumbo 76mm has a higher skill ceiling but also a higher skill floor. The Tiger II (P) can be relatively easy to play, but can also be very good in the right hands as well… unlike the IS-2s, where their performance are often capped by the reload.
1 Like
Chi-Ri Should be at 5.0. This is because it is a Chi-To (4.7) with a 37mm secondary. M19A1 and M42 should be at least at 5.0 as they have 2 amazing cannons with excellent penetration (72mm at 10 meters) while 5.3 Germany has 52mm of pen at 10 meters.
1 Like
I think the Chi-Ri should be 5.3. It’s a Chi-To with better reverse speed, a 37mm secondary, and (more importantly) a 4.5s reload (which is above average for the potency and penetration of the gun) instead of a 6.5s reload (which is below average).
It’s a lot better than the Chi-To’s to be honest, even with the larger profile and worse mobility.
Maybe 4.3, but definitely not 5.0.
The M42s and M19A1s have great mobility but their firerate is abysmal compared to other more competent SPAAs, like the Ostwind II.
The 72mm of penetration is nice but it is AP, not APHE, unlike the Ostwind II’s.
It means that you must go for side armour, instead of cupola shots, which isn’t always possible if the enemy is far away or aware of your presence. APHE also helps killing tanks quicker, so coupling that with more than twice the firerate, I can see why the Ostwind II is at 5.3 and the M42s / M19A1s are at 4.0.
Ostwind 2 isn’t great against tanks so it’s mostly used as SPAA. The M19 and M42 can pen the turret cheeks of Panzer 4 H when it doesn’t have add on armor. M19 and M42 shouldn’t be at a br where they have almost the same pen as 3.7 Russian tanks. At 5.0 they would be able to pen most thing’s sides but it wouldn’t cripple people’s tanks in 1 second.
BRs of vehicles account for both anti-air capabilities and anti-ground. The Ostwind 2 is not amazing against tanks but it’s at 5.3 because of the great HE rounds it gets and the firerate.
The M19A1 / M42 are much lower because they have worse armour, worse HE rounds, and much worse firerate… with slightly better anti-tank capabilities and better mobility.
Sure, and that’s why I think they should move to 4.3. They can also frontally penetrate some of the earlier T-34s and T-34-57s.
It doesn’t have the same angle pen, nor explosive filler (none at all actually) of 3.7 Russian tank shells, so I think 4.3 makes sense.
But at 5.0, their armour and anti-air capabilities are nowhere near the level of the Ostwind II, which would just 0.3 BRs higher unless you move up the Ostwind II. Considering CAS can still be played rather well even when there are Ostwind IIs up, I’d say the Ostwind IIs are mostly fine at 5.3 too.
M19 and M42 can be at 4.7 and do fine.