Chi-Nu as it stands could absolutely be 2.7 and be perfectly fine given it’s extremly poor armor, long reload for a relatively mediocre cannon, and average at best mobility.
1 Like
Nope; you think Chi-Nu is comparable to Panzer III J1 or M3 Lee?
1 Like
Is it not? Specially the Pz.III.
1 Like
Play the vehicles yourself before commenting. You believe they are comparable despite the fact that one has a significantly inferior 50 mm cannon and the other lacks a main gun turret.
1 Like
I have, except for the M3 lee, hence why I specifically mentioned the Pz.III in your reply.
Womp womp.
You mean similar penetration, much faster reload, for worse damage? And on top of that better mobility and overall armor? Absolutely, I would take that deal.
Sure, a few battles, reveal little about the vehicle’s actual efficiency. And better overall armor? Where did you even get that from? Mobility is fairly similar too.
So you are now relying solely on penetration at point-blank range? How about lowering every late-Sherman to 4.0 because they have worse penetration than Panzer IV even at point blank range?
I got it from the game, like how the Chi-Nu has front corners that angle inward, while the Pz.III doesn’t and also has thicker 30 mm side armor (rather than 20-25 mm), meaning it actually can angle the hull and protect itself from weaker cannons, something not even the Chi-Nu can do, on top of being more resistant to .50 cals from the side (something you would expect from a medium tank).
13.76 vs 12.77 hp/ton, much faster forwards top speed, and even better reverse.
Not acknowledging the difference doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Ah yes, because I didn’t mention the worse damage or faster reload. Indeed I relied entirely on the point blank penetration.
Even with longer ranges, at 500 meters the difference is only 9 mm, and you are not going to engage many tanks past this distance. Hence penetration is similar.
Ah, another straw-man. It’s not even true if you have M62 APCBC either, which is just flat better than a Pz.IV’s PzGr 39.
It is a fact. You might want to stop being provocative and assess your arguments before commenting here. Flat better, but at least a 1.0 full battle rating higher?
Probably for you. The fact that multiple players above have already stated that a battle rating of 2.7 is too low for Chi-Nu speaks volumes.
1 Like
No it isn’t. M62 has more penetration (149 vs 145 mm), faster velocity (792 vs 770 m/s) and more TNTe (63.7 vs 28.9 grams).
You cannot say it is a fact when it is not. Only the M79 AP round has worse penetration, but to use it to say that the M4s just have worse penetration when the unlockable M62 is much better is extremely missleading.
Because comparisons go beyond just one single characteristic. Every time I compared a tank to another in this entire exchange, I always mentioned multiple characteristics. The Shermans have stabilizers, better mobility, better armor (specially in their turrets), better turret traverse, .50 cals, better cannons, so on.
In fact, it is only you that has used one single characteristic to say if a tank is worse or not. Like how you said the Pz.III J1 couldn’t be the same BR as a Chi-Nu because it has a “far weaker 50 mm cannon”, ignoring literally everything else, and even ignoring that the 50 mm cannon isn’t even “far weaker”.
I just searched. This is not the case. Only you have stated this in writing so far.
My bad then. One person, two total.
Versus two stating the opposite.
(Keep in mind you said multiple).
1 Like
Chi-Nu is fine at 3.3, whats all this mess about? lol
1 Like
I just think its unrealistic and silly to expect every vehicle to perform identical to its competition of the same br.
Sure its easier to play other nations at low/mid br fthan Japan, but i expected this when i started playing Jap tanks, i didnt expect much, moreso i done it for the experience.
They work but there are much better vehicles, and so it should be the case and honestly rank 1 is run around bumper cars and everyone can kill everyone.
rank 2 and 3 require good gameplay and skills to overcome the lack of decent vehicles and lack of variety.
Rank 4 it gets decent again.
Its just a certain br range that “suffers” and even then, its workable and is realistic in terms of capabilities and similar to real life.
Why play Japan? either play another nation if you cant handle it or just get used to it and try harder to overcome the deficiencies of your vehicles, just as the Japs did.
At least until 6.7.
Chi Nu is good tank
Chi-to is a good tank
Now we get m4a3 76mm wwhich is great.
Chi- Ri good
Nato good.
3.7 has a good lineup
5.7 has a good lineup
If you buy the Chi-Nu II then you have a fairly decent 4.3/4.7 br.
1 Like
Is it? It doesn’t compare well against the other 3.3s.
It has a relatively weak gun, with low enough penetration that Shermans, KV-1s and other well armored targets are serious problems. It’s not unusual for a 3.3 medium to have such a weak gun of course, but it’s contemporaries have other aspects they can fall back on to compensate.
The Sherman has it’s stabilizer allowing it to outreact other mediums in close quarters.
The Cromwell has it’s speed, allowing it to get on the flanks and hit side armor.
The T-34 has it’s magical angle negation, as well as strong armor and mobility that allows it to brawl and get side shots.
The P40 is probably the closest comparison, but even though it’s gun is worse it has very solid armor to fall back on.
What does the Chi-Nu have? Armor is paper thin, there’s nothing you face that cannot pen you even angled and at range, even .50s can punch through the side armor. Mobility is unimpressive. Gun handling is very poor, with the slowest turret traverse at the tier and a slow vertical traverse, which seriously hurts your ability to get your gun on target quickly. It’s a tall, long target that’s hard to hide and easy to oneshot.
Really, the only thing it has going for it is a fairly high amount of HE filler in the shell, which is nice to have but it’s not like the other guns lack punch, and it’s not even the highest amount at the tier (80g vs 270g in the P40, or 150g for the T-34).
So what justifies it being at 3.3? Yeah, it can be made to work, it’s low tier, the skill level is at rock bottom most of the time. But I find it hard to justify it being at the same BR as the long barrel Panzer IVs in particular.
2 Likes
PzIV should not be at 3.3 thats why. Starting from F2.
The Chi-Nu has more pen and more explosive mass than the Sherman.
There is only 1 sherman at 3.3.
1 Cromwell.
1 T34.
No KV.
Also consider Italy, now that is a hard nation to work through.
Japan only suffers in the lack of vehicles to support the line ups better. The vehicles they currently have do well on their current br. People just need to learn how to play them and how to set up a good line up. Since the intro of the Ro-Go Exp. and the Chi-Ha LG, the lower Br battles became more fun and more playable. Wish we can continue getting more of them though. Japan truly needs the 3 German tanks they bought from Germany, we already have 1 of them, just need the other 2. Japan is also missing the Wheeled M8 Groundhog that the US gave them along with some few others like the T12 GMC (similar to the M3 GMC the US TT has). And we still lacking a few more Japanese designs that are at the suggestions.
Play the Chi-Nu, show me the results. You will see how well it does.
2 Likes
Explosive mass, yes (by about 20 grams, 63.7 to 84.8) Penetration, no.
M61 has 104 mm at point blank, 68 mm at 2 km.
Type 1 has 103 mm at point blank, 66 mm at 2 km.
Unless you were comparing to M72 AP which is only used if the Sherman is stock and is downright a horrible round, only exists to make the stock grind worse and hopefully get someone to spend GE for M61.
1 Like
lol!!!
Pretty much identical then.
come on man. 2mm? really?
Now your being silly.
I myself never said the penetration was better or worse when compared to the Sherman. This is so close that I would simply say similar.
However you said it was better.
1 Like
we can squad now if you like? same name ingame, inv me.
Not to prove you wrong or anything, just why not?