Ber. This isn’t real life. While tankers irl were trained to focus center mass it doesn’t mean they “Only” aimed center mass, it was simply where they commonly shot at since you didn’t have the time to prioritize other points of interest however there is plenty of photographic and footage which shows crews with large caliber weapons to ATGM’s who aimed for the turret, rear, sides, transmission, tracks, etc.
1 Like
The 90 mm M3 was not designed to kill the Tiger II.
And the turret cheeks are not a weakspot when shooting the Tiger II (H) with M82 APCBC.
3 Likes
Full paper nonexisted vehicle. But not like Panther 2 it wasn’t removed.
1 Like
So? How is that relevant that due to some bug an SPAA might be able to kill the M26 frontally?
That has like zero relevance for general gameplay.
An Ostwind can also penetrate an IS-3 fromt the side by having 37mm APHE bounce from the roadwheels into the lower side. That doesn’t mean that the IS-3 will be any worse against when fighting tanks.
Its not a bug, just thin turret ring so pershing also can be killed by -1.0 tanks.
Have u actually played with tigers or tiger 2? Busted firepower? Usa ground has more firepower than ger @Nyxsuke
Try to figure out the difference.
2 Likes
Show me it. On 6.7. T34 has great gun but shells has chronical non dealing post-pen damage disorder. T26E1-1 has copy of KwK 43 with more damage but less penetration, but has longer reload.
1 Like
Pershing’s weakspots slightly smaller in size
Pleas explain. Germany has MUCH higher pen, APHE on nearly everything, and generally has a mobility edge in comparable vehicles.
long 88> US 105 and 120.
Long 75 > US 90mm
german tank destroyers nearly universally have better guns than their US counterparts. Waffle vs M36B2 is no comparison. I’ll take a long 88 over 90mm HEATFS nearly any day.
US 105mm overpressures and likewise the 90mm APHE deals way more damage than the Panther 75mm. Since the 90mm APC buff, the penetration is almost the same.
1 Like
I disagree.
The 75 mm only really has a pen advantage against flatter angles and at close range.
Past 500 meters the 90 mm M82 has better flat pen, and even at 0 meters the 60° pen of both guns is equal, with M82 gaining more advantage with distance.
5 Likes
Aganist things like IS-4M both guns are useless. But Panthers don’t meet IS-4M
2 Likes
Not really comparable. M36B2 is much more mobile. If you can’t get into the same firing positions, you gonna have to compensate with higher penetration.
It’s just a trade-off. You don’t want to have a M36B2 with a long 88mm at 5.7.
Not to mention the better damage of 90mm APHE.
3 Likes
Let’s mention which enemies vehicles meet in combat. Panthers never engage with IS-3. Or “oh god save my poor soul” IS-4M. Long 75mm usually meet aganist shermans and T-34-85 which tapped into center and easily killed by fragnents and APHE explosion.
2 Likes
I’m not arguing Panther v M26 here.
He stated “long 75 mm > 90 mm”. Comparing both cannons objectively, I simply cannot agree with that statement.
1 Like
But it’s not objective if we exclude opponents of this gun.
3 Likes
I’ve already had this argument once with someone else on Reddit.
They argued that the 90 mm was worse than the Panther’s 75 mm because while the 75 mm can penetrate it’s targets basically anywhere at the BR, the 90 mm cannot penetrate the UFP of the Panther as easily.
Following this logic the 90 mm would only be better if it had over 200 mm of penetration with M82, in order to penetrate the Panther’s UFP. At that point it would just be better in every category, and not by a meaningless amount. That is highly unfair.
Sure, the combination of tank and gun might be superior. However, the gun itself? No.
1 Like
So we’re comparing one tank vs. lower BR vehicles, vs. another vs. higher BR vehicles.
Good Job.
IS-3 and IS-4M are slow armored boxes that have nothing going for them except armor.
That’s like saying, oh no the Pz IV H can meet a Churchill Mk VII or T14 while Chi-Ha Kai usually fights Rank 1 tanks.
You’re not fighting the entire team on your own.
A lot of arguments can be made when people cherry pick a scenario without looking at the whole picture.
Gun X being a better than gun Y doesn’t tell us anything about the performance of a vehicle.
There’s a huge amount of factors that is involved in the process of killing a vehicle.
For that to happen (in reverse order):
- You need to deal enough damage → Shell Type / Hit area
- You need to penetate their armor → Armor penetration / Hit area
- You need to hit them → Velocity / Skill
- You need to able to fire → Reload speed
- You need to aim at them → Gun depression / Gun Traverse / Mobility / Stabilizer
- You need to be in a position to be able to aim at them → Mobility
- You need to spot them → Skill
- You need to be in a position to see enemies → Mobility
- You need to be alive → Survivability / Armor / Profile / Mobility / State of game
It’s completely useless to argue with a specific state of that process, like Panther will easily penetrate a Sherman or T-34, without looking at the other steps involved.
No vehicle is perfect but the more you can check on the list, the more likely it is that you’re going to be effective.
The ability to penetrate any vehicle is useless when you can hardly get your gun on them compared to other vehicles.
That’s why penetration is overrated. The scenario of needing a lot of penetration is much less common then the scenario of acquiring a target and firing at them.
Hence why the combination of high damage (last step) + getting into a situation to fire on an enemy, is so effective. Even when you don’t get penetrations 50% of your shoots, you get the same or better results as a vehicle who always penetrates but gets less chances to fire or deals less damage.
Penetration also only add a list of potential targets you can penetrate but is pointless when the trade-off is that you’re less likely to hit targets that you could have penetrated with less penetration.
If the enemy team is only M18s, a Ostwind is going to be far more effective than any other vehicle, while when the team is only IS-3s, light vehicles will beat them with mobility, scouting and CAS.
However, teams are mixed, so vehicles that are jack of all trades are generally the best.
That doesn’t mean that specialized vehicles won’t work. They are just more dependant of being in the right situation at the right time.
A Waffenträger is good at sniping but when no one shows up, you’re not accomplishing anything.
Some vehicles are good in the offense, some in the defensive and some are decent at both.
If the enemy drives right into your gun sight, you don’t need mobility to put your gun on them but a gun that will pen and knock them out.
It’s the same deal with the protection onion. Armor is the last resort.
3 Likes
Okay, write more walls of text to justify any uptier of american tanks.
1 Like