Your grammar isn’t very good.
Also at a range of 500 meters there is drop.
lol flagged as “inappropriate” what a very good use of that flagging system.
we’re not just ‘english’ here.
And whatever.
Isn’t this the English forum? Oh my apologies I must be on the French one.
Please do return when you have a credible bit of evidence :)
It’s actually hilarious you think the T26E5 < T26E1-1
It’s the international here. you’re just a salted player there and yes I personnaly prefer the super pershing than the T26E5.
@forum mods, we’ve some judgment about origins here, now I can flag you
1 Like
Used to be OP? Yes.
OP at 5.3? No.
Average, it’s because german players are/were the issue. In good hands, M18 is dangerous.
It’s the same about others vehicules nerfed in battlerating
Skz 234/2, 234/4, AEC mk.II, Churchill Mk.I, Centurion Mk.2, Kv 220, etc.
As also mentioned, there have been changes made over the years.
M18 which was 4.7,
Kv-2 which was 5.0, now 3.7
Isu-152 which was 6.0 (4.3 and one of the meta in SRE today with its good ability to resist the bombs and the 12.7 ant-aircraft), etc.
2 Likes
Judgements about origins? That doesn’t even make sense lol. I’d love to watch a mod’s response to you.
The T26E5 is objectively and subjectively better than the T26E1-1 in all but gun.
You may prefer it all you like, but it isn’t better.
This doesn’t really prove anything.
1 Like
You are reading the match stats themselves instead of what they imply. :)
T-10A, Marder A1, and M3 Bradley, none of them are directly comparable despite their similar battle rating ranges, much like an IS-2 1944 is not directly comparable to the Tiger 2 Henschel
Despite that, it is still possible to perform well with all of them. :D
T-10A is one of the best 7.7s though.
Still, those matches don’t really prove anything.
Again, you misunderstand the point.
The point is, all vehicles in a battle rating range have their own strengths and weaknesses that a player has to consider if they want to perform well. It does not matter if the Bradley has a better autocannon than the Marder, nor does it matter if the T-10A can be penetrated by the missiles of both. What matters is the player behind them know what their tank can and cannot do by itself, not what it cannot do that other tanks can. :)
This is not good logic. Say a good player performs better in the 2A5 than the average one does in the 2A7. This does not mean the 2A5 is better, or that it should be the same BR, rather the player is better.
1 Like
That is not the point I am making, my friend. :)
In your example, the main difference is the player. The 2A6 player knows their vehicle better, which leads to them performing better. The fault does not lie in neither the 2A6 nor the 2A7 there.
Regardless, comparing a decent Tiger 2 H player to an average IS-2 1944 player is not a valid comparison, either. The Tiger 2 H player is decent with a Tiger 2, while the IS-2 player is only average with an IS-2 specifically. You cannot judge the vehicles if the players using them are already different. :)
There are some objective statements that can be made in this game.
IS-2 < Tiger II
2A5/6 < 2A7V
These are objective.
1 Like
However, these ‘objective’ statements fail to take player capability into account, nor does it account for the vehicle adaptability.
You can argue that the Tiger 2 is better at range, but I would also argue that an IS-2 is far better in city maps than a Tiger 2. Neither are wrong. :)
Regardless, you are comparing the IS-2 to the Tiger 2 in the terms of the Tiger 2. If I instead pointed out that the IS-2 has enough filler to kill all vehicles at its battle rating with a cupola shot, it would tip the scales in favor of the IS-2.
Archetypal comparison =/= Surface-level comparison. :D
Tiger II is far better in city maps.
Tiger II can as well.
1 Like
Not really, the Tiger 2’s flatter armor plates are much easier to exploit up close compared to the curves on the IS-2. Not to mention that the IS-2 is far more agile. :)
The difference is, the Tiger 2 could, the IS-2 will. :D
But the main point to take away is that these are two vehicles of different roles. It is simply unfair to compare them. It would be like if I said the Type 10 is worse than most top tier MBTs because of its armor, while ignoring the 610mm pen APFSDS and 4 second autoloader. :)
The Bradley is pretty goated idk what you mean it’s “not good”
Compare the kv-220
And the Tiger 1 at 6.0
They have the same reload.
About the same gun.
Kv-220 has better side armor.
Tiger has:
Better mobility
Better frontal / no commanders hatch to easily shoot, and what was it double the filler?
Meanwhile the Kv-220 has two loaders… but has a 7.4 sec load time. How does that make sense for them to be the same br?