Here’s the neat part, plenty of those HEAT-FS slingers were facing other WWII tanks. The AML 90 was made in the 1950s, plenty of WWII tanks still being used. The Rhodesians and the real South Africans had the Eland (AML 90) and Ratel, while the terrs were using T-34s. Korean War had the M50 versus T-34s and IS-2s. There was another African war famous for one dictator using an army of T-34s to invade Ethiopia in the 1970s.
I am pretty sure there are plenty of others out there, but those three examples are off the top of my head. And before you go all, “buh buh muh WWII!” remember, vehicles used during this conflict went on to be used for quite some time after. Israel was using P-51s, Spitfires, and Bf-109s during their war in 1948, France was using the Panther after WWII, Korean War was basically just a continuation of WWII but in Korea, and this was years after WWII ended. Many of the colonies and the Commonwealth nations were still using equipment from WWII years later, like with the Meteor (a WWII jet), Vampire (technically also a WWII jet), and whatever planes were flying in the final months of the war. The Soviets were selling their WWII surplus to basically everyone in the world, America did the same.
So yes, it is realistic your WWII tanks would be fighting HEAT-FS.
No one’s stopping you from bringing that pz4 to 9.3 like the syrians did in 1973.
This whole argument is backwards. Even if there are instances of vehicles being used later, why should the vehicles produced later time travel to BRs that are mostly ww2 vehicles?
There’s 1960s rocket vehicles with 400mm pen at the same BR as 1940s vehicles. Modern day howitzers with LRF too. Is there a reason to keep these vehicles at low BRs when they can be competitive in higher BRs?
@RhodesianLion-live
I couldn’t reply normally for some reason, so I just tried adding @ to test it. Not sure how the reply system works here fuck.
If your logic holds true, then we should abolish BRs and matchmaking entirely, and just let every vehicle fight each other regardless of era or capability. After all, if you really wanted to, you could theoretically drag even the most outdated vehicle onto the battlefield. But we all know why that isn’t done.Did the terrorists’ T-34s beat the AML-90s and Ratels? Did Syria Pz. IVJ defeat Israel’s Centurions? No. They were crushed.
PlEASE DO NOT BRING UP AIRPLANE WHEN DISCUSSING HEAT-FS.
Planes have always been extremely expensive, so it’s common for older designs to remain in service for decades. While it’s true that many WWII tanks saw post-war use, most of them (except for the Sherman and T-34) were only used as temporary stopgaps until countries could import or produce more modern MBTs from the US, Soviet Union, or Britain. These were very specific historical circumstances and aren’t particularly useful as references for game balance.
The reason POST WAR Light tanks can frontally penetrate WWII heavy tanks with HEAT-FS is that heavy tanks were still considered a credible threat at the time. However this is also a major factor that breaks the BR game balance whenever WWII tanks are involved.
You can keep trying to state this as an objective fact, but that doesn’t mean you’ve proven it.
You can look up the global stats if you’re so unwilling to actually test this theory yourself.
Filtering by rank 4/5 tanks, you can see that the overall trend is for the armored WW2(ish in the case of things like the T34) heavies to have a 1.0 KD or more, whereas all the vehicles that rely on HEATFS are solidly below that 1.0 KD threshold.
Win rate are kinda all over the place, as it’s mostly a metric of lineup viability over anything else, which leads to some odd patterns, like all the US vehicles around 6.7 having inflated win rates due to that lineup being very strong at the moment.
However, if you compare vehicles from within a lineup (IE M56 versus T34), you’ll see that, yet again, heavy tanks tend to have around the same winrate or better.
Without any statistical backing of an imbalance, your argument essentially boils down to “Light tanks shouldn’t be able to frontally pen heavy tanks because I don’t think they should”. Which doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
The heavy tank mafia really hates it when you point out their favorites actually perform favorably in the hands of good players, because unlike said good players they don’t have the situational awareness or positioning skills to outplay HEAT/HE-reliant tanks.
Have you ever actually played with a vehicle with HEAT at that BR?
95% of the time they are glass cannons that die from pretty much anything (ASU-85, T92, stuff like that). It gets even worse when you realize that HEAT half the time does nothing. It is a very hit or miss round and while it can pen your Tiger 2 frontally, there is no guarantee it’ll kill or even really disable it.
Regardless, if you are getting shot at in the first place you are doing something wrong. Your armor is meant to be used as a last resort if you get shot, not as your whole play style.
Isn’t complaining about getting shot by the enemy while using a highly concealed Tank Destroyer or Light Tank that excels in mobility simply proof that you’re using your tank the wrong way? Your argument ultimately leads to the conclusion that light tanks and heavy tanks basically play the same way. If the maneuvering and positioning are identical, then it’s obvious that fast light tanks and smaller, lower-profile tank destroyers would have the advantage. The only real difference is that heavy tanks can often destroy an enemy in a single shot, while Light Tanks(HEAT-FS) might need two or three shots.
Technically, all you needed to do was just press the arrow below my post to respawn to me, but I understand. It would be like Gaijin to not have a functional system on their forums, just look at their games.
Also, I understand the thing about the aeroplanes, I was just using them as an example that WWII equipment was still being used post WWII.
I do agree there should be a certain threshold between BRs, especially with some unfairness, especially when it comes to top tier when you have Vietnam era aircraft versus IRIS-T and BUK. Or when you had the BMPT facing equipment designed in the 1960s-70s (Centurions, M60s, Leopard 1s). Hell, I would argue that early jets should not be facing radar SPAAs and missile SPAAs (like how a Vampire is getting shot down by Chappies and Gepards, both of which were made two decades after the Vampire was created, and over a decade after it was pulled from active service).
Unfortunately, Gaijin will never do it. It is easier to ragebait the community and make them spend money on GE to grind, rather than actually listen to the community and stop messing with stuff.
Again, AML 90 (which uses HEAT FS) was designed shortly after WWII, during a time where most of the world was still using leftovers from WWII (Americans were still using Shermans and we’re developing M47 and M48, Soviets were still using T-34s and slowly integrating the T-54s, France was still using their WWII stuff and captured German equipment, Britain was still using their WWII vehicles and promptly upgrading, etc.) and this was into the 50s, where HEAT-FS and APDS were becoming standard. So yes, it makes sense that the AML-90/Eland would face WWII tanks since they technically were fighting WWII tanks. Because fun fact, militaries don’t just drop all their equipment the second something new comes in, they integrate it slowly.
Edit: I do agree about the howitzers, the PZH should not be 7.7, it should be a lot higher.
If you look at my previous replies, you can see that I was able to reply normally. However, now I can’t reply even when I press the arrow. Hmm… It seems I was able to reply successfully this time. Well it’s a trivial bug now anyway.
I think it’s an extremely terrible misunderstanding to describe the 1960s as right after WW2. After all, more than 15 years had already passed by then right?
As I said, classic Gaijin, mucking up even their own forums. I als thought the AML 90 was created before 1959, that one is on me. Doesn’t change that HEAT rounds were used in WWII, and HEAT-FS was created in the early-to-mid 1950s.
You are 100% right, it does mean you played the wrong way. But you misunderstood my point. I never complained about the lack of survivability. I simply acknowledged the lack thereof.
And my argument does not lead to that conclusion. My argument is don’t rely on your tanks armor to save you. That does not mean to play light tanks and heavy tanks the same way. It means don’t expect your armor to save you 100% of the time, because you may run into a vehicle that will simply ignore your armor.
I’m sorry, but you do realize how incredibly dumb that argument is?
Saying a light tank should not be able to pen a heavy tank from the front is an utterly insane argument. No other words to describe it.
And I wish people would stop making the argument of tanks from X era should only fight tanks from X era. This game has never been about historical fights, and never will be.
Those light tanks are at that low of a BR for a reason. Because they perform fine there. Not too good but also not too bad.
I’m by no means a good ground player, but if you are going to sit here and say that a light tank should be unable to pen you frontally just because of your armor, you need to consider your skill.
Heavy tanks sacrifice mobility for firepower and armor. Light tanks sacrifice armor for mobility and firepower. I really don’t see the issue here.
Germany developed (75mm) HEAT-FS right at the end of WW2 and you see the same design pretty much copied and maybe slightly modified and used in the PT-76.
HEAT is pretty much poor man’s AP. It works, especially for low performance guns that would otherwise have hardly any performance with kinetic rounds, but it also has limitations, like post-pen effect and range/accuracy.
If the damage system was more realistic and gameplay changes would be made, historical match making could be implemented or at least to some degree.
You just need to give players more benefits from playing objectively worse vehicles.
Possibilities are endless but you could give them more CAS option or even allow to spawn a vehicle of even higher BR, like unlocking a nuke but instead a powerful tank.
well, duh, same happends when M18 drives by. Lol. Its your situational avareness`s fault OR not even a fault at all, just a death ingame where the M18 played right. What’s your problem?
everyone normal would NOT like to play any other nation than germany then. Because its “bs” when heavies are bullied by garbage tanks with nothing but cannon. But its “not BS” when any other tank is useless because why use it when can use tiger 2 :/
xD lol. Okay. “different philosophies” means that the tiger 2 should be one in the entire team, with 10 teammates on late pz 3s. And the US or USSR team against it should have 100 players with T-34-85/M4 76W, several IS-2 or 1 pershing. THAT is what “different philosophies” mean.
Bro, you are delusional AF. Game doesnt work like that. YOu wont, never would like to have that gameplay. To be 15 matches in Pz 3 against horde of 34-85s. To once play a tiger 2.
