A medium tank not being able to frontally pen a higher BR heavy tank from 1km should be entirely normal, I don’t see the issue here.
B5N1 800 kg bombs are pretty good at tactical insertion. But i agree.
Yeah but other medium at the same br can? I am not talking about the heavy tanks. The medium tanks are enough. That they can pen chi-nu anywere and it cant pen them is alone saying its worse.
3 Likes
Indeed most Japanese tanks were often equipped to deal with light gun fire->37mm’s. But when it came to let’s say a Sherman not really unless you are at range and or providing supporting fire. Which is what the Japanese excelled at. Especially in the game. Specifically in game.
Yea, German tanks at 3.3, and who else?
US? M4A1 can barely penetrate KV-1 (except for the turret cheek) and ARL-44 (ACL-1) at 1 km.
Soviet? T34 (1940) will not penetrate both at 1 km.
UK? Cromwell V has an even worse main armament ammunition than Chi-Nu.
Italy? P40 has less main gun penetration less than Chi-Nu (unless HEAT is considered), even at point-blank range.
China and France? Both use M4A1 or its rough equivalent.
Sweden? It does not even have a decent 3.3 tank; the Pvkv III has far less penetration at 1 km than the Chi-Nu.
Thats cool. Sherman has about same gun as chi-nu so it cant pen Kv-1 at range. But again. It all comes to sherman begin able to take shot back. Chi-Nu just cant. Because chi-nu has armour of 2.0.
2 Likes
Yea, that is why I said 3.0 battle rating might be a potential option but not 2.7 in battle rating.
1 Like
Like I said. I suggested both 3.0 or 2.7. I am fine with both. But it does not belong to 3.3. Same with Na-To that bounce absurdly with the volumetrics and there are just so many better options with better guns or turrets and they would togeder with So-ki make somewhat solid 3.0 lineup worth playing. They would still face better enemys at 3.0 or at uptiers regulary but at least would have chance to have down tier so their armour isnt just for display and can actually survive some of the weakest guns as its really just 2.0 medium armour.
3 Likes
Technically The I-Go We Have Is An “I-Go Otsu”, Even Though The Model Is A:
- I-Go Ko (New Body - Mid Production)
But The 120 hp Engine It Has Would Indicate It Being An I-Go Otsu As The Primary Difference Between (Name) Ko & Otsu Is The Gasoline 100 hp vs Diesel 120 hp Engine.
The Body Work On The Vehicle Would Be
- “I-Go Ko” Indicates It Has A Gasoline Engine
- “I-Go Otsu” Indicates It Has A Diesel Engine
- “I-Go (Prototype)” 9 Tons In Weight
- “I-Go (Early)” With The Funny Round Turret & Boxier Hull
- “I-Go (Mid)” The Model We Have In-Game
- “I-Go (Late)” Driver & Hull MG Gunner Switch Position
1 Like
Oh interesting, thank you! I had assumed Kou/Otsu referred to all the production changes, not just the engine. Thanks for clearing that up! :)
The first US tank to truly surpass the Panthers in terms of raw firepower and frontal protection is around the M26
If you want to pretend firepower and frontal protection are the only relevant values.
2 Likes
Sure, except:
- Worse overall firepower (no .50 cal, not stabilized, slower reload, worse turret rotation, worse ricochet chances for 20 grams more TNTe).
- Comparable mobility (Sherman has better acceleration, Chi-Nu gets better reverse).
- Far worse armor
Very much an “equivalent”. Specially when the tank it is an “equivalent” to is just better.
2 Likes
I never pretend; it was an example taken from his logic, read again.
So, then enlighten me what is the “absolute” equivalent of something such as the Tigers and Panthers on the German ground tech tree? Strv m/38 on the Swedish ground tech tree? M18 in the US ground tech tree?
The truth is that you will never find a “absolute” equivalent. The Chi-Nu was developed as a stopgap tank to counter the M4 Sherman until better designs, such as the Type 4 Chi-To medium tank, could enter service (which they did not because World War II ended before they could be mass manufactured).
For example, during World War II, the late-Shermans and T-34-85s were designed as a comparable (but not necessarily “absolute”) answer to late German tanks; while both the late-Shermans and T-34-85s have far superior mobility, both have inferior overall firepower and armor compared to the Panthers (according to your reasoning). The T-44s are one of the first Soviet tanks (at least from the game perspective) that have comparable frontal armor protection versus the Panther. Unless you are advocating for something like T-44s battle rating to be reduced or Panthers battle rating to be further increased because one “equivalent” is better than the other, your argument about trying to find an “absolute” equivalent is meaningless because it rarely exists. Countries design tanks based on their own ideology, needs, and anticipated combat environments, thereby producing tanks that are comparable as an equivalent to one another but not “absolute”, as you would like to understand it.
Please go and check how BRs work, then write this again. If a tank performs worse than others at the same BR, and it’s above 1.0, it can go down.
Of course if you can prove to me how any given Japanese tank is worse than any reserve tank of another nation I’ll gladly accept you insisting they are bad.
2 Likes
Japan’s problem isn’t bad vehicles, it’s overtiered ones. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the Chi-To’s, for instance, they are only considered less favorably than the long barrel Panzer IVs because it’s 1.0-1.3 BRs higher than them. Lower them down a notch or two (And raise the Panzer IVs up again), and they’d be fine tanks.
Same with the Chi-He. Put it at a tier where the 47mm really suffers, and it struggles. Lower it down a BR or two, and suddenly it can work as a decently flexible medium again.
We aren’t talking about vehicles like the Type 60 ATM, which is just bad at any tier, we’re talking about vehicles that are needless high in BR due to the BR tax minor nations get due to the ceaseless flood of new and inexperienced players to the three majors. It affects all minor nations (Except maybe Sweden) to some extent, but seems particularly acute in Japan’s case. There is no reason something like the Type 87 RCV Prototype should be 0.3 BR higher than the Wiesel, a vehicle that’s objectively superior to it.
1 Like
Data is leaked and hacked in
Situational? Technically everything is situational but you really want that roof MG because the muzzle brake on the Tiger is such a big weakspot, pretty much any SPAA can destroy your barrel and tracks in .5 seconds. And in that case you really don’t want to rely on the coax and glacial turret traverse against an SPAA in cqc.
I mean, even if you have the roof mounted MG, it can still be damaged by the SPAA and its also only going to give you a few seconds of safety from said SPAA till its gunner comes back and chances are its either moved around your tank and is ready to surgically remove your crew or you’ve already killed it with the coax so having the roof mount is near negligible.
The only solid justification I would seriously consider for a roof mounted MG is to tickle aircraft flying low and perhaps hoping the pilot has a skill issue and gives you a free air kill.
I didn’t argue about any “absolute equivalent”. I argued that the Chi-Nu, despite what you stated, is not an equivalent to the M4 given how the M4 is just vastly superior to it, and the Chi-Nu has no real advantage.
I think you’ll find that you were the one saying “equivalent” when such a word does not work.
Maybe next time don’t use a specific word and then try to spin a straw man argument on people that criticised your use of said word.
What it was meant to do in real life does not matter in the slightest. This is a game, one that is to be balanced, and as it stands the Chi-Nu shares a BR with tanks that are simply outright better than it (case in point being the M4A1).
Again, real life, which has no actual hold on how a tank performs like in game.
Besides now you’re subtly saying that what you actually meant was “comparable”, rather than “equivalent”, which is not the same thing. Even with “comparable” in mind, the Chi-Nu is very clearly in an unfavorable position compared to the M4A1.
By “comparable”, you mean “far stronger”, yes?
The T-44 can stop the T34’s 120 mm APCBC directly on the upper glacis at all but very close a range, while the Panther gets penetrated by a much weaker long 90 mm cannon at 500 meters.
The T-44’s turret is also stronger. And that’s not to mention side armor which the T-44 has nearly double that of the Panther’s.
Also mobility, which weirdly you mentioned for the late M4s and T-34-85, but then left out for the T-44 which has even stronger mobility than those other two.
First, I am not. Repeating myself now, I simply pointed out that the Chi-Nu is not an equivalent to the M4A1. And even if one were to use “comparable”, the Chi-Nu blatantly is worse.
Second, the T-44 is far stronger than the Panther, and very clearly compares favorably against it, so it being higher BR is fine.
Ok, and I don’t disagree?
Yet this doesn’t change the fact that the Chi-Nu very clearly is worse than the M4A1. I personally would say it is the worst of all the 3.3 mediums.
2 Likes
Which I did indicate in my above reply to 侍KAMIKAZE侍 that it might justify a battle rating of 3.0 but not really a battle rating of 2.7; so what exactly is your point then? You seem to be deliberately trying to spin an incoherent argument despite the fact that I already agreed to 侍KAMIKAZE侍 suggestion that, despite Chi-Nu being an equivalent to M4A1, it is weaker.
2 Likes