Maybe good gun depression isn’t game breaking (it actually can be - situationally) but the opposite (poor gun depression) can be a game killer.
Having to expose more of your tank on non-flat terrain to take a shot can be critical. Not as bad as say… the IS2 with -3 … but -5 is still quite limiting.
How can you drop it back further than the T-34-85, which is already the 5.7 vehicle?
It would be okay to drop to 6.0 if they remove the BR-367 round.
uuuuuuuuuugh… Thats a tough one for sure.
It really depends on the map, on hilly maps Russian tanks get shredded but they do fine on city maps where gun depression isn’t an issue
Name a map that doesn’t conveniently have a tiny flat city map built into it.
Even if a map has many hills, the map often also features parts without them, where gun depression isn’t an issue.
Thats why Gaijin spend the last 6 years adding the same map type.
Sun city, Abandoned town, Alaska, Cargo, North Holland, American Desert, Spaceport, Middel east, Seversk 13, Aral Sea, Iberian Castle, Breslau, Campania, Sweden, etc etc.
Even most of the old maps where choped or reduced and now 8 of 10 battles are in one of thse stupid city flat maps.
If there’s a “town” in some cases it is limited to 1 section of the map - think Maginot Line or Sinai or Vietnam. So 1 cap area.
Mozdok
Kuban
Karelia
Jungle
Frozen Pass
Finland
Carpathians
Vietnam Hills
Ash River
Then there’s maps like Arctic - you are confined to the gullies or sitting up on top of the snow-hills as an easy target.
Stalingrad is a city, but there is so much rubble in there (historically from previous artillery) that it is not all that suited to armor - ironically it applies more to Russian armor than most other nations.
Normal T-34-85 is already a very good tank, far surpassing the M4A3 (76). Considering the fact that the M4A3 's only advantage is its stabilizer, I’d say 6.3 is very fair.
“only advantage”
Yeah, guess it’s gonna be impossible to convince this community that cannot look at the entire vehicle’s capabilities and arsenal when it comes to judging vehicles fairly.
Worse cannon
Worse armor
Worse mobility
Is this even an argument? The 76mm Shermans are nothing without their stabilizers.
Already listed a bunch of things that make the M4A3 (76) Sherman situationally better against competent players, not gonna list them again.
The M4A3 has better acceleration though.
yeah and there 5.7 and do amazing at that tier as there one of strongest 5.7s at the moment First shot first kill is always theres the actual tanks that kept it from dominating no longer fight it at its br so basically there screwed
All this talk about comparing the M4A3 76 with the STP when there is already a Sherman at 6.3. Sure, it might have worse mobility, but the armour is far better. But US players have for years asked for it to be moved down because the gun doesn’t work at that BR.
Shermans have no place above 6.0 (In the TT, uptiers are a fact of the game), T34-85’s do.
quote=“CasperWieIk, post:53, topic:284793”]
but the armour is far better
[/quote]
When you’re facing IS-2 or KT, armor differences between T-34 and M4 Jumbo do not matter one bit.
Though i didn’t get my STP yet,but i have his US cousin:T20 medium tank
Looks T20 is similar to STP ,their low pen in AB are so bad,RB maybe a bit better but…i think they can not even pen weak point in uptiers.
So i think gaijin should lower both of them to br6.0
The 76 Jumbo is honestly fine at 6.3, it only suffers in uptiers like almost every heavy tank.
Well doesnt the 6.0 Tiger get APCR shells also?
Which is practically useless.