You’re trying to apply video game terms to real life. No one designed their tanks as a “brawler” or as a “flanker” or as a “sniper,” these are just roles they’ve found themselves in-game due to their BR placements and in-game performance. As I’ve stated before and as you’ve already agreed to, the Chi-Nu being a stop-gap vehicle doesn’t diminish its role as a medium tank, just like the M3 “Lee” being a stop-gap vehicle doesn’t diminish its role as a medium tank.
I will do the cardinal sin and be arrogant. You can’t make an argument against what I’ve already stated. You can’t deny that the Chi-Nu can’t perform any role optimally or better than any of the other 3.3 mediums. It has poor armour, an average gun that isn’t compensated for by anything else, and average mobility that can’t compensate for either its “okay” penetration or its poor armour. It can’t perform as a sniper better than the Pz. Kpfw. IV or as either a brawler or a flanker as either the M4A1 or the T-34. It is utterly mediocre.
None of this faux history crap can change that fact.
4 Likes
Let’s see Type-5 Ho-Ru oh look at that a tank destroyer designed to engage the sides of tanks. Hmm, I wonder why. Oh, I know cause they were designed with that in mind.
You will not change my mind about what the designers had in mind when designing these vehicles. Every tank is designed either out of desperation or with some level of reasoning for it to be produced that way.
There is a reason why back in WW1 you had 2 types of tanks.
The Mark V with MG’s and the Mark V with MG’s and cannons. One was meant to engage positions including concrete MG bunkers. Who ended up engaging other tanks the Germans made.
However, the Female Mark Vs were given the role of supporting the infantry with mobile MG support to see how the Type-3, Type-4, Type-5, and the M4 Sherman were not designed with a specific role in mind.
It’s basic human comprehension, vehicles are never designed for no reason. You don’t slap a fat-ass 76mm cannon onto a tank chassis unless you had a reason for it and there was always a reason. This is why the Archer tank exists.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The creation of the female Mk. Vs, or any of the female tanks, was done because there weren’t enough Hotchkiss guns to supply the initial Mk. Is, so machine guns were installed instead. It was, later, implemented to make tanks specifically designed to fight infantry, but was ultimately mostly done just to save the costs of production, though this was abandoned after the Mk. V with later tanks being made as “hermaphrodites” if the parts to make them a complete male weren’t there, and the Mk. VI and VII completely abandoning the idea of a female and a hermaphrodite tank, because the need to save costs by only using machine guns wasn’t worth it any more.
Regardless, of that, what’s even your point? You don’t appear to have one. The Chi-Nu and the M4(75) were designed with the same role in mind and, if the Chi-Nu would have seen action, had the same role as tanks for any purpose. You haven’t provided anything in retort to that and keep trying to distract with unrelated tangents. Though, as I’ve already said in my last post, that’s also just irrelevant to their in-game performance.
1 Like
Right man, you don’t understand the concept of roles. So let me ask you this, why do you think the designations IFV, SPG, and APC exist? These are roles. Going by tracked vehicles tracked ones are fundamentally tanks but going by a Military mind calling them tanks would lead to the crews of these vehicles using them as tanks. This is why the Army called the M10 Booker an SPG cause they feared that tank crews would use them as a tank. This is also why Gun motor carriage existed for a time. It is to differentiate these vehicles from being used as tanks.
However going specifically for the M113. The South Vietnamese: They did not give a flying f, most countries also do not give a flying damn what you call it. It quacks like a tank, its drives like a tank it is a tank.
Yeah, and both the M4A1(75) and the Chi-Nu have the same role, yet one performs far better than the other and is at the same BR.
3 Likes
One is a support vehicle the other is a brawler. I fail to see how it isn’t. I’m not justifying Jack as some other individuals have claimed. I’m saying its role is completely different from its BR.
One can brawl with other tanks, the Glass cannons as many call them such as the Chi-Nu weren’t. They are not brawlers. Nor should be used for those types of engagements. As the term glass cannons goes, fire and reposition.
Shermans on the other hand do not need to do this, and the only reason you would, is when you have to deal with opponents with a superior gun.
What’s a support vehicle and how is the Chi-Nu one? You’ve failed to define this and just get into a tangent about real life vehicular roles, which “brawler” isn’t one, whenever it’s asked.
3 Likes
Oh for damn sake. Why do I need to repeat myself for the 50th time cause people cannot scroll up and read? Sigh. I digress. I’ll explain it again. Oh and for future notice that first part is a rhetorical statement.
I guess you’re correct in the regard that playing the Chi-Nu in a more supportive role is the best way to play it due to how inferior it is at its own BR, but that isn’t how it should be performing and it’s utterly inferior as a glass cannon compared to the Na-To or the Pz. Kpfw. IV.
1 Like
Still typing atm.
Support Vehicles vary from Tank destroyers to light tanks to armored vehicles meant to flank.
Archer Tank was a defense tank/tank destroyer. however, would perform poorly trying to support infantry. The gun built backward was so that the vehicle didn’t flip on itself.
Other vehicles vary from The M10 Wolverine, M109 Paladin, Ho-Ro, Ho-NI I, and Ho-NI III. Ta-Se, So-Ki, Oswind, Wirbelwind anything that’s a truck with a gun would be defined as a support vehicle. Almost all of these are capable of engaging enemy armor but should not be at the front lines as that is not your primary task. Ho-Ni’s are one example, most of the Ho vehicles were artillery/SPGs. The Ho-Ru in this case was different, it engaged the sides of tanks and a lot of art depicts it as such. (Yes I’m aware the Ho-Ru didn’t see combat but its an example of what its duty’s and the designers had envisioned)
As I said earlier. I do want it to be lowered down the BR bracket. However, the Chi-Nu should not be compared to the M4 Sherman. It is a lot more comparable to the M3 Lee/Grant not gun-wise. Though.
Until its lowered down the BR bracket then it should be compared to the M4A1(75), because it’s the main example of why it shouldn’t be at the BR it’s at. If it is lowered, it wouldn’t be relegated to this “support” role in having to be more cautiously than its contemporaries.
1 Like
That I mostly agree with. A vehicle that I believe should not be at its BR is the Ho-NI III however that is a topic for another time.
He likes to say this about the roles but neglects the fact that even in this dedicated support role that he has applied to the Chi-Nu, it doesn’t excell compared to other tanks.
2 Likes
Guys theres no point of brigning up someones stats or arguing in like 100 messages about single example of Chi-Nu 1 that I gave. Chi-Nu is simply worse than its competation and should be at least 3.0 and Na-To too so they can make somewhat solid 3.0 lineup with So-Ki. Lets talk about wider picture that japanese ww2 vehicles have basically no lineups, gaps in tech tree (that could have been filled by things like Ka-Chi but insted it was made 1 chance event vehicle), no free multi color camos, no starting premium, no solid cas etc. (those things not gonna get fixed by adding copy cat vehicles of other nations nobody asks for)
Like this camo should just be free given its the moust common one for japanese tanks that were fighting in front lines:
japanese camos that are free in game right now are kinda like saying that german unpainted tanks were norm or thats how they suposed to look like
Or when you look at something like american LVT. There are whopping 9 multi color camos that you can get just by playing game even so 99.9% of american armoured forces looked like this in ww2 (due to having air superiority and preferably tell your own planes that its your tank rather than hide) :
If Ka-Chi cant be pulled out of void for new players anymore (even so it would have been perfect for next in line of Ka-Mi) then the gaps has to be filled with other things.
Best bets would be things like
To-Ku
type 5 Ke-Ho
type 4 Ke-Nu
type 3 Ke-Ri
6 Likes
inb4 “This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.”
Well, played many low tier tanks using 1 vehicle and 1 spaa (for the sake of taking down CAS) and they do well within their Br. I believe players are so used to playing them as brawlers when none of these low tier Japanese tanks are brawlers. They are meant to be played as an ambush, flank, camp, a bit of sniping. You don’t go in the front lines, but rather letting the enemy come to you. I had to learn this when playing the ST-A3, recently been playing well with it. Before I struggled using it, especially the Type 61…they have certain playstyles. I applied the same tactic to low tier and it does fairly well. Japan is limited to certain playstyles compared to the other nations with a variety of vehicles.
I love Japan, I main Japan since introduction in 2016. But so far they are doing well at their current br. A -0.3 Br would be nice for each of them mentioned here and I welcome the buff, but they seem to be in the right spots to me as of now. The APHE rounds mostly one shots every tank it pens. Ya will disagree with me but that’s fine. That’s just my thoughts and opinions that I am sharing based on my own experience and as an experienced player.
1 Like
That’s why I call them support since this is the role/category they all perform well in. Aside from this, unsure why this category got unlocked. Really shouldn’t.
Ambushing and camping aren’t actual playstyles. They’re just crutches for vehicles that are too weak to engage in regular combat, if that’s all that they’re good at doing. Rank I and II tanks excel at mobile combat, quickly repositioning to get the best angle on opponents, rather than trying to hang back and hit targets with the ineffectual 37 mm. The only real exceptions to this playstyle are the Ka-Chi, which is better to be played as a heavy tank that also has absolutely trash side armour; the Ho-I, which is just low enough that you can abuse its 50 mm of armour effectively as a brawler; and the later Ho-Ni and Chi-Ha LG, which can perform well at long-range due to their hard-hitting guns and, relatively, high velocity.
3 Likes
Well not really, they are not good at ambushing or camping more than any other tank but yes its the best strategy you have left if you have worse tank. They dont have the speed to get in position to ambush better than any other medium, nor do they have some magic tracks that would help them climb some hill position better not even talking about ww2 light tanks that japan has barely any in game and ones that exist in game are not much faster or smaller than medium ones at the br.
