Depends on the caliber. Depends on the armor. Depends on so many factors, but this thread is about the M6A1.
The M6A1 doesn’t have APCR, if it did I could see it staying at 5.0
It doesn’t, it deserves to be 4.7
1 Like
I was using 76mm APCR and it’s overall performance and usability is sub-par at best, and I doubt lower tier tanks will have much higher caliber rounds (especially those being discussed here).
APCR is a joke of a round for a reason.
It’s the difference between a penetrating shot and a non penetrating shot.
It doesn’t have it, and I don’t want the M6A1 to have it either because I believe an American 4.7 lineup is more useful than two copy paste tanks at 5.0
Problem is, even when penetration happens, APCR can fail to disable anything and just make it go orange/red, which is far from ideal if you ask me.
1 Like
This only occurs if you do not make full penetration and hit the crew member.
Gaijin has failed to model spalling correctly on the majority of rounds in the game, APCR should be treated like a bullet. Aim for ammo or aim for a crew member that is hopefully the gunner. Don’t rely on its spalling to kill.
My bad.
Still, I pointed out that the APCBC can penetrate the cupola and lower front plate of the IS-1.
The turret front is also a possibility but I’d rather shoot the lower plate as it is huge, flat and more reliable since the turret front of the IS-1 and 2s has lots of plates on which rounds can be absorbed.
The only area that the APCR can penetrate that the APCBC cannot do so reliably is the upper plate, which is 120 mm CHA at 30°, if I’m not mistaken. Still, APCR does not have the ability to utilize the cupola as an efficient weakspot, due to the lack of filler.
Since we are talking about the KW-1C what I stated is absolutely true. It is just better to use APCBC against the KV-85. And it would be no different on an M6A1 if it had access to M93 APCR.
APCR not only deals more inconsistent damage but also can shatter against multiple plates of armor and has poorer pen against high angles, meaning it can even have less consistent penetration. For example, the APCR on the KW-1C cannot penetrate the upper plate of a T-34 reliably, as it has below 45 mm of penetration at 60°.
Except in all the tanks you’ve mentioned, other than the Churchill MK VII and specifically the IS-1’s upper plate, you can use the KW-1C’s APCBC and shoot the exact same spots and still penetrate. APCR does not open up any new spots to penetrate on the KV-85 that are at all meaningful, and while it can go through the IS-1’s UFP, there is the significantly easier shot to be made which is the LFP, a much thinner and much bigger plate that the APCBC can penetrate.
Never said it was or that it should be.
Most, including me, will disagree. In my case, I disagree because of the overall extremely limited use case scenario.
The only exceptions I have are for the Jumbo 75 mm, and the 90 mm M304 on the M3 cannons. The Jumbo has such low penetration for its BR that sometimes you do actually need the increased flat penetration.
The 90 mm M304’s case is different. It actually has superior 60° penetration at close ranges compared to M82 APCBC, and this is because it’s the only US APCR that gets close to its actual real life penetration. I’ve tested it, and it will go through a Panther’s UFP at close ranges.
However, these are exceptions of APCR rounds that do have somewhat meaningful uses. Most APCR does not get close to this.
You dismiss the round by saying APCBC does its job better. APCR does not have the same job as APCBC. Using it as if it does is a lot of people’s problems with the round.
No, I have not. In fact I’ve implied several times that the “job” of APCR is to go through thick, flat armor. The only case of an APCBC round doing this “job” better than APCR is with the 100 mm BR-412P APCR and BR-412D APCBC, since Gaijin’s calculator actually makes it so 412P has lower flat penetration that 412D.
My argument is that this job is so niche that it ends up not being useful, specially due the disadvantages that come with APCR. The only exceptions to APCR rounds that can be useful are the ones of the Jumbo 75, and the 90 mm M304, for the reasons I have stated.
1 Like
I just flagged your comment, lel. Maybe you should consider changing it or even stop being rude to everyone you’re talking to. /s
hummmm … ok ? Not really sure about what you think you’re doing but sure go ahead.
Are you try to say me how to play a tank when you never played before ???
Go and play it first.
Is comparable or even better than the German KV and M6 should be moved to 5.0 or bring back the others to 4.7.
- It’s a premium
- It’s not so unique that I can’t understand how it plays
- APCR is found on other tanks besides that tank and with less penetration, I’ve played with it on those tanks, I know how the round works and performs
That I will not concern, but KV-85 is NOT going to 5.0 period.
And??
You dont know how this tank perform, right now you only are extremly biased.
After read your post, looks like you dont have a idea how the APCR in KWK L/48 works.
Yes becuase you and only you can decide the BRs here, LMAO.
I disagree. The frontal armor is trolly, its got a good gun with great gun depression, and its overall pretty maneuverable. Yeah its an acquired taste, but I don’t think it needs to be downtiered.
1 Like
It’s uptiered currently. Previously it was at 4.7
That’s a suggestion for another tank… It’s 76 and 37 for this variant.
That quote, actually came from a simple google, and wouldn’t be hard for you to also find.
Yes, but since the T1E1/M6A2 90 was brought up, it seemed fitting to put that forum topic there, since it has better and more accurate information on these vehicles in general, such as the sources that talk about the armor of these vehicles.
It’s only been brought up because the guy is having trouble with it and people want to pick on discrepancies, rather than actually admit the reason that people are pointing to in here…
The 90, and even the 105, were only used for testing, the 76 and 37 were the actual basis.
You could suggest unlockable maingun mods to make the 90/105 a thing, but that’s nothing for this thread…
It won’t help the issue of the player dying, and ignoring the points put forth in here.
Oh I know. I’m just saying it’s fine as it is at 5.0.