There is no way the vehicle is 6.3-worthy and the APCBC shell is in no way proper compensation for the BR increase. The tank only has the mobility going for it, but even that is not light tank level of mobility. It lacks gun depression, armor, proper penetration (both APHEBC and APCBC shell will be shrugged off frontally by heavy and even some medium tanks), smoke or smoke shells and reload rate (compared to the 76mm). The M4A3 (76) also with a stabilizer at 5.7, in exchange for a shell with a bit worse angled performance and less overall top speed has a much better gun depression, smoke shells, a 50 cal, a noticeably better reload rate and a kinda usable turret armor. The T-34-85 (STP) will struggle alot at any situations when the enemy is even slightly aware of it at 6.3. The APCBC shell doesn’t help against the opponents you’re gonna face, that slight extra flat pen is not gonna help it get through more frontal or side armors than the APHEBC shell and you even lose out on angled performance, so it’ll be more or less the same performance-wise.
6.3 seems bit too high for it. the 6.0 it had originally wouldve been much better.
I’d argue that all T-34-85s are a bit overtiered atm and are far more reliant on players not understanding how to play their vehicles right or lack situational awareness (german mains). It could easily go to 5.7 with others going down by 0.3 BR, because I really only see it as a side grade to the M4A3 (76). Lack of smoke shells/smoke grenades, identical reload to the german tanks alongside with the lack of gun depression where it’s even more important to use terrain just makes it so much more limited in tactical options.
Eh, I find the already present unstabilized T-34/85s to be perfect contemporaries to M4A3E8. The lack of short stop stab and smokes does hurt it, but I personally never had that many issues with their gun depression. Any other deficencies are compensated by the BR-365, some of the penetrating shots i made instantly triggered this meme in my head.
Anyway, as I said, id first like to see it at 6.0 as it was initially, and then it can be adjusted to 5.7 or 6.3 depending on performance if neccesary. To place it at 6.3 straight away is going to make it DoA.
It went to 6.3? Is it getting HEAT at least?
its stabiliser is very good and the only thing it cant reliably front pen is the tiger 2. i think it will be perfectly fine. looking forward to playing a lot of it
This T-34 will clean house even at 6.7 with BR-367, It will functionally be just as effective as the T-44–which is already crazy at 6.7 and should be 7.0. The stabilizer will let this thing chew through anything that isn’t already pre-aimed and waiting.
I have no intentions to stat-shame you however you don’t seems to own T-34-85 nor T-44, T-44 do have excellent armor but still equipped with the same outdated (for the battle rating) Zis-S-53 85 mm cannon meaning it won’t reliabely pen frontally top heavies at its own battle rating let alone at higher battle rating, I don’t get how it should be at battle rating 7.0 in your opinion so does battle rating 6.7 for the T-34-85 (STP).
Ive played a good amount in the D5t T34-85 and have a 1.65 K/.D in the thing (to save you looking to stat shame) and i can comfortably say that thing ought to be 5.7. better reloads should make the later one higher and then adding a stabiliser onto it 6.3 is fair.
STP should stay at 6.3. you cant front kill the heavies but we shouldn’t be balancing on “can it one shot kill and not need skill”
it must be 6.3 because the t20 is also at 6.3
Not all mediums need to frontally pen heavies, otherwise what’s the point of a heavy tank then? Its got the speed and mobility, flank and spank.
Technically true but false on War Thunder beliefs using the battle rating rule, at battle rating 6.7, T-44 is the only medium tank not capable of piercing the most commons weakspots in Tiger II and T34 heavies, pretty common vehicles at said battle rating. When most maps and encounters in War Thunder is summarized in urban environment “speed and mobility” and “flank and spank” isn’t much of a option you’re relying on the last resource that is the armor which I acknowledge that is good in T-44 case.
I’ve played the vehicle here and there and I secure an rather low 1.29 kill-death ratio or 1.30 kill-death ratio (if you round the values from 1.298… to 1.30) which is above the average (note that I’m considering that every data for vehicle is shown in a normal distribution) considering data shown in StatShark, take me to the conclusion that even with BR-367 the difference is not much but offering better angled penetration values.
This is for a vehicle that do have armor as T-44 and decent power-weight ratio offering good mobility for what it lacks: firepower; given that T-34-85 (STP) has no armor improvement, at battle rating 6.3 is stretching too much, which at the same time I can’t see this vehicle being played at battle rating 6.0 specifically considering USSR doesn’t have battle rating 6.0 ground vehicles to create a competent line-up with, if you consider this anyways, only tech tree available, you’ll be offered 2S1, SU-100 and BTR-ZD, which are support vehicles, at least on my point of view, considering that I don’t bother bringing vehicles as these listed before as first spawn.
I personally think 6.3 is fair. Stab is a huge advantage. Nothing in my 7.0 USA loadout has it.
Neither does anything in my 6.3 USSR loadout. Hell nothing in my 8.0 French loadout has it either.
This seems like it would be perfect in my USSR 6.3 loadout! I’m honestly excited for it.
Sad that it’s going to be over-BR’d from the start, but this is the trend for Soviet vehicles.
I have no reason to play the T-34-85 STP now, because I can play the superior vehicles instead.
Like the 5.7 IS-1. Oh no! No stabilizer! I have armor and speed instead.
T20 is a superior tank to this and it’s the same BR.
They should remove the new shell and reduce it to 6.0.
T20 is still gonna be better in several margins (and even then, the T20 should still be 6.0 at max). Like genuinely, tell me what is gonna be the main advantage of the T-34-85 (STP) over the T20 to warrant it to be at the same BR?
No, it doesn’t got that much speed. 15.5 HP/T, while good HP/T, is still hindered by a lack of forward gears and is still not at light tank levels of acceleration. When you can’t rely on armor, you either want a punchy gun or acceleration that can get you literally to any other place when the match barely even started. The T-34-85 (STP) will have neither as it tries to be a jack-of-all-trades instead without any outstanding features, which will be more prominent at a BR where you need to excel atleast at 2 things or be situationally prepared for more. Yes, the stabilizer helps alot, but again, why would one use the T-34-85 (STP) over the M4A3 (76) that is at 5.7 in exchange for far more trade-offs?
better gun, with much better angle pen and more than double tnt, armor is better because its more angled
gun, armor and speed
Plain false and ignores all points I’ve made in this whole thread.