The single consolation I have is that it’s comically easy to kill with artillery vehicles thanks to being an oscillating turret vehicle. Getting that shot off is a different question entirely but it’s very easy to kill them when I can
The armor sucks sure, but it’s got the best reloading 105mm in the game for a manual loader, and the Heat 8 times out of 10 will one hit a vehicle.
That’s what I said 🥹
Seriously though I did warn EVERYONE that it was going to ruin 7.3 - 9.0
And it did.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding you but most 105mm manual reloads are 6.7s and some (like the IPM1 / M1 Abrams) are even 5s.
The M-51’s 7.5s reload is by no means fast for a 105mm.
It really depends on the vehicle though. Some squishy light tanks or relatively cramped tanks (like the Jumbo / IS-2), for sure.
Tanks like the Tiger II, Tiger E, Jagdpanther, KV-220, etc…
They usually take more than a shot or two to kill, ay least from my experience.
Also depends on whether you can see their hull or not. 9/10 times you aren’t going to one-shot hull-down tanks unless you manage to hit their turret ammo (if they do have turret ammo that is). That’s another reason why the Tiger II’s 7.5s reload 237mm pen 100g equiv TNT shell is so good. 100g of TNT inside most turret crew compartments is usually enough to kill the entire crew and knick a hull crew member or two.
1 Like
M247 is scary at every BR xD
1 Like
AMX-32 has like nothing that makes it outstanding or unique at 9.7, it’s practically a everything worse MBT-70 at same BR for 50~ more angled pen.
Which still sucks when you compare it to DM33/63 slingers at lower BR.
AMX-32 (105) isnt just worse than that with even less speed and very poor armour which leaves you even more 20/23mm-able but the round is even closer to DM23 in performance when you’re at BR where shooting DM33 is nothing unique.
AMX-32 (105) and AMX-32 should both be downtiered, with AMX-32 (105) going to 9.0 since it’s also not supposed to have a thermal (which at 9.0 ot would make it more bearable). AMX-32 has nothing above any 9.3’s to be suddenly higher BR than them.
Needless to say AMX-40 is outperformed by Leo 2K of same BR by mile as well.
1 Like
MBT-70 doesn’t have thermals nor ESS, which is quite helpful against tanks with no thermals.
MBT-70 has a 7.5s reload whereas the AMX-32 can have up to a 6.7s reload.
The MBT-70’s APFSDS is classified as a short-rod APFSDS whereas the AMX-32’s APFSDS is classified as a long-rod APFSDS. This, along with the extra ~50mm more angled pen, gives the AMX-32’s APFSDS much better post-pen spalling.
The MBT-70 gets better gun handling, a flexible 20mm turret, better acceleration, gun depression, and better armour.
The KPZ-70 gets even better mobility, a 6s reload, and more smoke grenades than the MBT-70, so I think the KPZ-70 should definitely be 9.7.
I agree that the AMX-32 (105) could go to 9.0 if it had its thermals removed to be fair. It’s equal or worse than the AMX-32 (120) in every way, like you said.
Well, I’d say that a lot of 9.3s should go up to 9.7 too. The KPZ-70, Olifant Mk.2, Gal Batash, CM11, OF-40 (MTCA), AMX-30 Super, and possibly the Tam 2IP, Type 16 (FPS), XM-1 (GM) / XM-1 (Chrysler) and ZTZ96.
I agree, and it’s why I’d say the 2K should go up to 10.3.
1 Like
That I could agree, however mostly for XM/MBT-70/Kpz-70, maybe OF-40 MTCA too, as these are the main offenders of the BR, as they essentually perform just like 10.7 MBT’s, just not armour/gun wise. Which isnt as punishing as everything has it worse.
You have to use that very careful, as for whatever reason you can see the engine exhaust particles through the ESS (at least on my end).
MBT-70’s worse reload speed can be ignored when you consider it’s autoloaded and is rarely destroyed (you will most likely die than have it disabled). That and the fact that there’s an accepted bugreport for MBT-70/Kpz-70 to be controlled by only commander only, much like STRV-103.
There I can agree, however yet again you can remember than any 9.3 has better or way better shell than AMX-32 (105), AMX-32 and even 10.0 AMX-40. The post pen damage is also calculated through remaining penetration for long rods, which equals to AMX-32/40’s having also worse damage on top of being mostly unable to go through tanks like T-72A/M1 (also Leopard 2A4 with the dpzer blade equipped (had one moment where dozer blade doubled with the containers I had to shoot through made it impossible for me to penetratate the Leopard 2A4, where DM33 would actually penetrate similar scenario without issues.
They share identical mobility to MBT-70 from my memory.
Leopard 2K could easily be 10.7 if it was made historical via addition of gen 1 thermal or at least the rammer for the loader, speeding the reload up.
Doesn’t matter which version of Heat - all heat is terrible on maps with trees or fences or other types of cover. The fact that it ONLY has heat is what handicaps the m51.
m51 is only used by Israel - a nation that mostly fights in the desert. Unfortunately most of the maps are not desert.
And it doesn’t even have a .50 mg on the roof - just a weak .30 mg.
Make it 6.0 in arcade and GRB.
KPz has 25 more horsepower while also being lighter than MBT70
I was talking more WW2ish tanks.
It got a pretty long round, and quick reload for a good payoff.
I know not everyone like heat, but it’s honestly goated since it blows apart light tanks and spaa just by touching them.
And with how much pen it has? Yeah. It’s good
Compare it to any other 105 similar to it
I did not like my time in the m-51 for last battlepass’s israel challenge, however, it was extremely cathartic to just shoot a panther in the front and watch it die
1 Like
6 out of 10 times is already being generous, 4 out of 10 times is more realistic.
Bushes should not be a balancing parameter or a default, you should not take them into account. I don’t own a single one.
Well, the OF-40 (MTCA)'s, TAM 2IP’s, and AMX-32’s rounds are equivalent to most mobile 10.7 MBTs. It’s just the reload that makes their firepower worse (6.7s instead of 6s / 5s). They also have their own unique qualities:
OF-40 (MTCA) has great gun handling, TAM 2IP gets good mobility and above average gun handling, and the AMX-32 gets a coaxial 20mm (albeit not amazing) and thermals + ESS.
I think these being 9.7 makes sense as a result.
The KPZ-70 / XM-1s all have crappy rounds with a mediocre 6.7s reload (besides the KPZ-70), but they have even better mobility, great gun handling, great gun depression, a 20mm / thermals, and more usable armour than the ones I’ve mentioned above.
These seem reasonable at 9.7 as well.
The MBT-70 does not get a 6.0s reload like the KPZ-70 does, so I think this one is fine at 9.3.
Well,
The Type 16 FPS and AMX-30 Super are somewhat of an odd-ball.
The Type 16 FPS is quite tanky against autocannons frontally, while still having access to DM23 (not great but not as bad as M735 / XM578E1), amazing sight, amazing thermals, great mobility, and good gun handling.
The AMX-30 Super is similar in the way that it also has great mobility, good gun handling, amazing sight and access to thermals, and it gets a better dart than DM23 (although not as good as DM33).
These seem to me like they should be 9.7.
The Olifant Mk.2, Gal Batash, CM11, and ZTZ96 kinda fit into the same group where their rounds are amazing, and they have other good qualities.
Sure they don’t have great mobility like the other ones I’ve mentioned above, but their armour and / or gimmicks make them worthwhile.
Olifant Mk.2 gets DM63 with Gen 2 thermals and access to ESS.
Gal Batash gets DM63, trolly turret armour (especially for crappy darts used by the KPZs / XM-1s) and access to thermals + ESS.
CM11 has the worst armour, mobility, and survivability out of the four but it gets DM63 with a 5s reload, and still gets access to thermals + ESS.
The ZTZ96 gets an incredible round (Type 1985-I APFSDS), good enough armour against anything <= DM23 (which isn’t anything crazy but can be quite good in downtiers or KPZs / XM-1s), and still gets decent mobility.
I’d say these are good qualities that should reflect a 9.7 BR.
I haven’t really had an issue after using ESS with thermals for the past year. It’s a really underrated gimmick at that BR range.
Not really? Unless you’re comparing when manual-loaded tanks have only two crew members left.
7.5s is still abysmal compared to 6.0s, 6.7s, and even 7.0s (like for the T-72s and ZTZ96s).
You’re assuming that those manually-loaded tanks get shot in the first place, which:
It’s better to be alive with 2 crew members than die to an ammorack explosion 😅
I mean, that would be nice though I wouldn’t say it’s really necessary for them.
Sure, though the ones you’ve stated here:
Only one of them has a superior dart.
The other 9.3s (like the Leopard 1A5 and Strv 105) have DM33 / DM63 too but I wouldn’t consider them to be anything special. They’re just solid for 9.3.
I mean you are correct. Residual penetration has different bands.
IIRC:
<50mm of residual penetration,
50mm - 400mm of residual penetration,
and
400mm+ residual penetration.
So if you are penetrating ~20mm of armour, or are penetrating ~370mm with DM33, the spalling of DM33 and OFL 120 G1 is the same.
So UFPing the T-72s (which have ~380mm of UFP armour front-on) with DM33 and OFL 120G1 may be different.
That being said, OFL 120G1 is still a very serviceable round with all things considered.
Weakspots (like the LFP) will result in similar spalling.
MBT-70:
KPZ-70:
KPZ-70 also weighs less, giving it a HP/TON of 29.8 (almost as good as the 2K’s 30hp/ton, though the transmission of the KPZ-70 / MBT-70 isn’t as good).
I can get behind that.
A 6s reload with thermals seems reasonable at 10.7. Maybe 11.0 considering it would be a PT-16 with thermals, better turret mantlet armour, and access to rooftop 20mm at the cost of a 4s reload.
I mean, it sounds good on paper but I wouldn’t say it has been doing particularly well at 6.3:
I’ve never really had a problem with heat tbh.
Especially on the M-51 / AMX that fires the same shell.
Theres the odd shot that will do a small amount of damage, but generally that chance is pretty universal across all ammo types. Unless it’s Smoke… or APCR on a tank that shouldn’t have APCR shot at it.
They kinda should.
Some light tanks can be completely hidden because of it, and some TD’s and Heavies will use them to hide weakspots.
Others may use them too.
But they do change a vehicle’s effectiveness and that much is true.
1 Like
make an option to hide them.
A ton of Sherman players do this in low tier to bully new players and it’s quite frankly just gross. For a “cosmetic” option, a lot of people sure do like to just put them in places that make their tank ugly but happen to hide things!
2 Likes