Yeah it’s got a lot of empty space to negate APHE damage, frontally i put 2 BR-365 rounds into the left and right cheek and he still managed to get his gunner back in time to overpressure my poor su-85.
Howitzer tanks have no right being at BRs where they can negate all armour, you should at least have to aim for weakspots or specific areas of a tank, and that 203mm shell doesn’t care for any armour at 4.0
Ps: Replace british M44 with the Bishop
Germany Needs the Hummel, America can have the M7 Priest, and Britain can have the Bishop.
I think what you forget about the t-90a is that it also has lws being one of the only mbts in that br range that gets warning for being targeted when youre in a long range sniper role (not preferable for the t-90, but still) but also from a lot of non tv guided aerial threats (though the lws threat elevation angle is not too high i believe, it still helps) and aps that helps vs all wire guided agms.
It also gets gen 3 gunner thermals as one of the lowest br mbts to have these (situational, still helps in obstructed parts of maps like dense forests and also in foggy conditions)
EDIT: Almost forgot: It also fires 3bm60, Russias top tier round at 11.0 (similar to the sprut at even lower br, and the stryker that also fires (almost) top tier performance darts at a quite low br but sort of trades that with slower reload and worse gun handling than competitors like the leo2a4 and others that have a very snappy turret and gun but a worse performing dart)
If you want speed and front row brawling → t80 b or one of the premiums, for solid support role, maps with lots of vegetation and especially SIM, where its the main mbt in its bracket for russia together with the t80b (and maybe one more). It is fine where it is even though, yes, obviously it has downsides, but so does every tank in every br. Its upsides equal its downsides and if you can and are willing to adapt to that then its no problem at all. I quite like it
And to move the amx-50 (TO-90) back down to 7.7 where it should have stayed from the beginning, but not the char 25t doesnt make a lot of sense. They are basically the same, one is a bit faster and has scouting as a light tank, the other one is marginally slower (debatable, since amx-50 (TO-90) has higher hp/ton, but lower forward max speed and much slower reverse since char25t has reverse gearbox) but is a bit better armored. Both fire aphe that struggles with most heavies (even when in full downtier) frontally. It never made any sense from the beginning why the surbaisse with insane ammo, giant autoloader ready rack, the amx-50 (TOA100) and the somua that all fire ap that can deal with anything also from the front (but possibly take multiple shots from the sides, but again thats no problem due to autoloader) stayed at 7.7 while only the tanks that rely on flanking moved up (and now have to face mbt-70s, chieftain mk10s, t55am1s, t-62m-1s and obj 279 in full uptiers).
Surbaisse to 7.3 or buff it’s round. It should not be in the constant 8.7-8.3 blackhole
It has no armour questionable mobility, all it really has is it looks and a good rate of fire. But the 120 AP is painfully mid, bouncing off IS2s and Tiger 2s is a bad joke. Don’t even try it against a T-54!
Optics are too poor to snipe and the gun is also very inaccurate (not sure if this was a balancing decision)
Not 7.7 material
The good ol Meatball launcher- Resistent to 50cals frontally and even some autocannons lol
Sweden Could use the “Minimal Exposure Derp cannon”, Same gun as the Spj fm/43-44, Just mounted a tad higher for those sneaky peeks, Also its very tall-:
It’s playable if you get a 7.7 game which is incredibly rare, you are always uptiered and you have no armour to deal with it. The Lorraine 40T is just so much better.
Dropping it would prevent the constant uptiers and give it a chance. Statshark is talking win rates of the whole French 7.7 lineup which is good
I played it a lot in 8.0 / 8.3 and never had a problem.
As long we’re waving WW2 things fight WW2 things, I’m happy.
Off topic, but:
Agreed. I need my WW2 German tank sights.
These stats do actually qualify for Gaijin to move it up.
Eh I disagree, if it was 2.25 KDr or higher, then yes
Gaijin has moved up tanks for having a 1.3, shows how terrible this playerbase is.
Then why is the Tiger II and T29/30/34 all still 6.7 - 7.0?
British RB Ground BR’s:
- A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse.
- SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kinda it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped.
- Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers currently it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, T-34’s, etc.
- AEC AA: 3.7 down to 3.3. I don’t understand Gaijin’s insistence to keep increasing the BR’s of enclosed SPAA’s. The 20mm’s aren’t even that good.
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far worse rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.0, though even this is wrong (see my bug report) it should be the weaker 6-Pdr Mk III further justifying a drop to 3.7.
- Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)?
- Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow.
I disagree with your Conqueror change, the vehicle doesn’t even have a stab and it’s been reported to Gaijin. Just remove the stab.
Well i dont have an answer for that sadly as im not responcible for what gets implemented, But as long as its a already made (and up to date) suggestion it should be fine, and the hope for it to be added should be the same^^
That’s why I said 6.7 - 7.0
