is this new, i m a bit conused cos ist says december 24 and its not decembber 24 or 2024, but its says t58 in the us techtree, waht was reacently added. so could somehelp me?
Edit button exists
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i cant remember they chaged the br last dec. did they?
Tigris and Heavy Tank 6 are both Tiger Es. Guess where the Tiger-E is at? So should that one also go down to 5.7?
2 Likes
well yes, i compared it to the t-54 for a reason since they share the br and ammo selection
the pen by itself is good for it’s BR but kinda slow with 250m/s, the main problem is it’s 75mm canon with solid shell with low pen, dacing t55A or t95e1, the normal version of the amx13 is good, at a BR of 7.3, i indeed, don’t see why moving up so far at 8.3
That’s because the at T-54s are bit over br’d. I spade them forever ago, and I WILL NEVER spade another. What a terrible tank.
Only the Tiger-E has some launchers :) therefore an advantage, and the Heavy Tank no.6 has the stupid “smoke launchers” that you cannot use on the corners of the hull, making angling in a hull down position very difficult.
I can only assume you’ve played none of them due to your response.
They probably made it 8.3 because it can “rapid fire” in a sense between its cannon and its ATGMs.
Like i said, you’ll need to bring more pen values for the rounds, etc etc.
“rapid fire” is a bit funny cause those ATGM are slow as hell, and the fact that they face upwards makes the aiming really hard
You can’t fire the gun while aiming the ATGM and you can’t aim the ATGM while firing the gun.There are zero tactics to combine both. If you fire the gun, your gun will reload and the 2nd shell will hit the enemy tank usually before the ATGM arrives…
Then yes I could put it on the list to move it to 8.3 > 8.0
If someone would kindly format it just as I had previously.
Sweden:Bkan 6.7 > 7.0 (fast firing gun, Proxy)[
U-SH 405 8.0 > 8.3 (a much faster and quieter rakentenautomat).
Pbv 501 6.7 > 7.3 (should never be a BMP-1 below 7.3 regardless of not having an atgm, as the main gun is quite good.)
T-54 8.0 > 7.7 (same reason as Soviet one)
Pbv 302 (Bill) 8.7 > 8.3 (these atgm launcher systems are absolutely terrible to play / spade. It’d be easier to eat one’s own hands).
Itpsv Leopard 8.7 > 9.3 (being a better, and better armored Gepard, it’s strange it’s only been one br higher. 9.3 is a good fit for it though.)
LvKv 9040c 10.3 > 10.0 (long load times after all first stage ammo is fired, also stacking two AAs at the same br doesn’t help.)
VEAK 40 7.7 > 7.3
The Dual 40mm guns, with their current muzzle velocity of around 850 m/s, are largely ineffective against most jets.
Until the bug report for the Lvakan 48 is fixed, the VEAK 40’s BR should be reduced to make it less likely to face jets.
Additionally, the VEAK 40 is massive and extremely easy to spot, especially with those loud turbines. So it hardly benefits from any element of surprise as a ground vehicle. And the 94mm Of pen is just comparible to other SPAAs at the br.
Special mention incase of previously mention Bug report being fixed
Lvkv 42 4.7 > 5.0
Offers better performance against both ground vehicles and aircraft compared to before the velocity increase.
It also has a smaller profile than the AMX-13 DCA 40 — yes, it carries less ammo, but with ammo crates, that’s hardly an issue.
It even has slightly better mobility, and on top of that, adjustable suspension?#No armour best armour
U-sh 204 gk 5.3 > 5.0
The 20mm cannon is practically useless against anything with more than 10mm of armor (despite its lies of 57mm Pen.) While the vehicle’s speed is great and its armor can handle small-arms fire (and even 12.7mm rounds from certain angles), the gun itself is ineffective against ground targets at its current BR. It also lacks a scouting ability
Pvkv m/43 (1963) 5.0 > 4.7
Arguably a worse Pvkv m/43 (1946), this version adds a thin sheet roof and APDS rounds that can penetrate the front of most tanks, but the armor remains unchanged where it really matters. The front and side protection are identical, offering no real improvement in survivability.
On top of that, mobility has been sliced in half, making it feel much slower and less responsive than the 1946 version.
Overall, this vehicle would be much better suited at 4.7
(Finnish) KV-1 m/1942 4.7 > 4.3
Arguably a worse (Finnish) KV-1B — you can’t angle the turret to improve survivability because of its rounded turret cheeks. It often faces much more powerful guns, despite having armor that’s arguably worse than the standard, yet up-armored, KV-1.
Strv m/41 S-I & Strv m/41 S-II 2.7 > 3.0
(Also, replace the stock AP round with APHE or APDS.)
These are excellent support and scouting tanks.
They have APDS rounds that perform exceptionally well for their BR (and even above), decent armor, good mobility, and fantastic gun depression.
The only real reason they seem to sit at 2.7 is because of their sub-par stock AP round, which only offers about 50 mm of penetration.
Spj fm/43-44 1.7 > 2.0
Has great armor for 1.7, making it surprisingly survivable. The 150mm recoilless gun is extremely effective and comes with a decently short reload for such a large caliber. Combined with its excellent mobility, this vehicle performs exceptionally well for its BR all the way to 3.3/3.7. Its an Amazing Bonk vehicle with great mobility and is much Immune to Heavy MGs.
Feel free to comment on any of the Suggested changes.
1 Like
I really only question the Veak, and kv-1 other than that them seem good.
Veak is a bit good for 6.7 matches it’s a 7.7 right?
But the Sweden kv-1 1942 has a better turret than the kv-1 Zis.
If they add the Soviet version of the 1942 I would expect it too to be 4.7
I do appreciate you doing as I asked with formatting though! :D
1 Like
VEAK 40:
Honestly, if you think about it, the Leopard 40/70 is actually better than the VEAK 40. The VEAK 40 is basically a giant target, all of its ammo is stored in the center of that huge turret, so if you get hit, you’re almost guaranteed to detonate.
The Leopard 40/70, on the other hand, is smaller, faster, and far quieter. You can hear a VEAK 40 from miles away. it can’t hide, and with that massive FOREHEAD™ of a turret, you can’t use terrain effectively either.
The Blue Area Is the Amunition storage, hence the name
FOREHEAD™
The radar is nothing special, just a basic search and track system. In my experience, it loses lock after about 5 seconds for no apparent reason. Compared to the ZSU-23-4 or the 37mm variant, the VEAK’s radar feels much worse. Those vehicles are smaller, have better penetration, and don’t come with that trademark FOREHEAD™.
Also the Leopard 40/70 Doesent have the Velocity issue…
(Leopard 40/70 - 1010-1005 m/s, Veak 40 - 850m/s~)
Plus, all the crew are crammed into the turret, meaning a single hit usually knocks out everything — either by killing the crew or detonating the ammo.
Kv-1 m1942
I guess that just means the KV-1E is just undertierd for 4.3, As has been the case for a loooong time.
So conclusion i do still think the VEAK 40 is fair for 7.3 but the lengths it struggles against jet aircraft is dire.
I don’t really agree with things like the m163 being a 7.3
Nor do I agree with the Veak.
It’s one of the better multirole spaa, while having a pretty accurate radar, and armor so thin it doesn’t usually fuse APHE, but is kinda allergic to heat.
If it were to go down in br, it certainly would need its radar accuracy to be reduced.
What? What does the Kv-1E have to do with the 1942 or Zis?
The 1942 / Zis get the add on hull armor.
Yet the 1942 has the stronger turret of the three.
The KV-1E has the weakest gun, with only 87 pen? If that.
Edit: I added your other suggestions
1 Like
Reminds me of yesterday when I found several BUKs sitting in the spawn, with only the tip of the missile exposed. I decided to 50-cal it to see if it still had protection active, and then the thing just blew up. I killed two with the MG to the missile after pushing their spawn. That’s like someone sleeping with supercharged morning wood and you put a bullet through it.
For the BUK’s case
FOREHEAD™ ❌
MORNINGWOOD™ ✅
2 Likes
My mistake i didnt fully Analyse what KV-1 variant you talked about, I just asumed since i mentioned the KV-1E originally you talked about it o7
You said:
“ (Finnish) KV-1 m/1942 4.7 > 4.3
Arguably a worse (Finnish) KV-1B — you can’t angle the turret to improve survivability because of its rounded turret cheeks. It often faces much more powerful guns, despite having armor that’s arguably worse than the standard, yet up-armored, KV-1.”
The Finnish KV-1 1942 is better than the KV-1 Zis-5 because of volumetric.
KV-1B > KV-1E purely because it doesn’t face German guns.
1 Like
Yea makes sense^^ o7
1 Like
Strv m/42 DT 5.0 > 5.7
The reload speed is insanely fast - just 4.0 to 3.5 seconds! Combine that with a 75 mm gun firing APHE rounds capable of 149 mm of penetration and excellent angled performance, and you’ve got a real powerhouse. Sure, it lacks the APDS shells of the Strv 74, but honestly, with this vehicle’s superior mobility and blistering fire rate, it already outclasses the Strv 74. And its turret is about, 30-40% smaller.
The vehicle is highly mobile, maintaining its speed even through turns and reliably reaching its 45 km/h top speed on most terrains. Its armor is sturdy enough to shrug off some autocannon fire, and the massive gun breech that divides the turret absorbs around 60% of incoming damage, often allowing it to survive hits from an 88 mm shell with only minimal crew loss. sometimes just a single crew member, thanks to the breech taking the impact.
Pvkv IV 3.0 > 2.7
This vehicle is abysmal. Its mobility is only slightly better than the Strv m/40L, it struggles to get around the battlefield effectively. The turret is its biggest weakness: cramped with both turret crew members sitting shoulder to shoulder. paper-thin armor, sluggish rotation, and elevation speeds that make even the M10 Gun Carrier look responsive. As for protection, the armor is completely inadequate for its BR, offering little to no resistance against anything you’ll face.
On paper, the gun seems promising — it’s the same cannon found on the Pvkv III, just mounted on a lighter chassis. But even with APDS rounds, this vehicle is a painful matchup against stabilized Shermans and T-34s, both of which will outgun and outmaneuver you with ease.
Ikv 72 1.7 > 2.0 (And switch places with the Sav m/43 (1944) )
This vehicle is fast, agile, and deadly. Its gun is excellent for its BR — even up to 2.7, and thanks to its APHE rounds, it can one-shot most targets with a clean penetration. The cannon boasts an impressive –20° of gun depression, letting you comfortably use terrain to your advantage.
With its low profile, this tank excels at close-range brawling and flanking, making full use of its quick reload and devastating APHE shells to dispatch nearly any opponent it encounters. Sure, the armor is thin, but given its speed and firepower, it’s a fantastic little machine that more than makes up for it!
Ill drop in more when i can:
1 Like