T34 can get penned in the front plate by a king tiger, it’s pretty overrated. The Pershing gun is decent with the bonus of solid mobility and speed
I meant in terms of just saying armor vs armor ad gun vs gun and confronting it head on.
Each has strengths and weaknesses and you need to play to the strengths.
OP was talking about the T34 hiding between two buildings and not being able to pen it (from the front?). Well sure you probably can’t. Try a different tactic.
A couple of things things to pint out in your rebuttal…
OP never brought up T26E5 but…
- it uses the same gun with same ammo as the m26 - no advantage there.
- is slower and has less HP/ton ratio
- hull armor on flank is just as weak as the m26, which on a slower tanks is a bigger handicap.
- it’s supposed to take on the Tiger 2 face to face. The m26 is not. m26 has no problem taking out Tiger 2 from flank - it just needs to make those adjustments.
You can call artillery gimmicky if you want. Maybe you don’t use - I have no idea. But it’s a tool in the tool box that can be effective when used properly.
Of course the Protection analysis makes the m26 look all green - but we all know that’s optimal situation. In a battle with tanks moving and changing direction and the UFP sloped at 46 deg - shells can bounce. m26 can’t fight heavies with big guns by sitting there trading shots. Needs to use its better speed and maneuverability (didn’t Tiger 2 get a nerf there? what’s the new HP/ton ratio?) to get into an ambush position.
Moving it down to 6.3 would not be the end of the world, but I’d say moving the T34 up to 7.0 instead would be the better option. Would be too unbalanced to have the m26 facing 5.3 vehicles in a full downtier.
What 6.7 medium tanks are superior to M26?
STA3 and Type 61 have looser suspension, slightly better forward mobility, and far less armor for that HEATFS top round they get over APCR.
T-44 is just worse than M26 outside its mobility and hull front. The weakest 6.7 gun in the game by far.
Centurion Mk2 gets a stabilizer but loses armor to M26.
So arguably that means only STA3 and Type 61 are superior due to HEATFS and slightly better forward mobility… and that’s really it.
Which is exactly what BR is NOT!
They’re probably scared of rebuffing all the SPAAGs which would see substantial penetration increases and actually useful postpen damage on their HVAP (aka APCR) rounds. Especially the R3 T20 I’d imagine…
Look how much whining the Coelian is causing, and it doesn’t even have the APCR its guns could fire yet…
For actual tank penetration values though, un-nerfing APCR, first-gen APDS, and HEATFS would do more to decompress the game than any amount of individual BR raises ever could. They’d collectively create such a ruckus that we’d instantly need to double the BR range to have sufficient room to fit everything.
Absolutely, may as well add it to all postwar 90mm guns and the long 90s too. And if we’re talking APDS, the M103 is missing one with 495mm pen at 30deg slope from vertical at 1000yd range… It’s called T102.
Yeah I don’t know what their deal is but they seem dead set on running the calculator without any changes.
Is it really “whining” when you’re calling out a real problem
2 Likes
They corrected APDS to historically accurate levels for the most part, but APCR has not seen the same treatment with no explanation why.
Depends - what “problem”?
For some, it’s legitimate bugs. The AA or the target rolling forward causing server desync and shells thus teleporting through armor to explode is most definitely a problem. Spamming enough shells to lag out the server so some phase through armor is also a problem. Volumetric shells not interacting properly with old 2D plate armor models and squeezing through microscopic gaps is most definitely a problem. I personally agree with dealing with all of these - but unfortunately the actual fixes are NOT easy for any of them.
SPAAG killing tanks is not a problem in and of itself, but most of the whining is simply about this. It is blatant and utter hypocrisy to punish SPAAGs but then turn around and give IFVs with autocannons free passes. It’s especially insulting since IFVs have better mobility, lower profiles, usually are closed-tops unlike most open-top SPAAGs, most have ATGMs to pen things autocannons can’t, and then most insulting is that IFVs are allowed unlimited amounts of APCR/APDS rounds in their autocannon belts, while SPAAGs are castrated for no apparent reason.
No, the whining is about SPAAs doing it better than most tanks. Not to mention, fighting SPAAs is just simply more annoying that fighting normal tanks.
Yeah especially the ones at 8.0-9.0 range insanely OP.
1 Like
Yup, this is the consequence of BR compression, that’s pretty much it. Many of the medium tanks at 6.7 do not match with the heavy tanks at this BR unless we’re talking about the heat slingers and the issue is that reducing the BR of these said tanks will result in them outclassing most vehicles at 6.3.
It’s is neither 6.3 or 6.7 material, it is somewhere in between.
I believe the Pershing will be fine at 6.3 the tiger sure maybe not the best comparison but the Tiger is at 5.7 but the tiger is a heavy at 5.7 and it can pen the pershing so i think 6.3 will be fine i think 6.7 is to high because when i bring the pershing and M18 i shouldnt be fighting IS-3’s in my M18 or even pershing because bring both those is pretty normal.
Ive free aced all the crew on my 6.7 lineup, my most favourite was the m26e1, the t26e5 was the best standard 90mm because of the armor, t34 didnt like it that much because no APHE, and finally my least favourite but still got a 7kd in was the m26.
People sleep on 90mm apcr, it absolutely crazy, sure youre not going through an angle, but the spalling it does when you hit flat armor is insane.