It’s perfectly fine at 3.7 just like Churchill VII would be perfectly fine at 3.7 and KV-1c at 4.0
It wins 1 v 1 vs Puma and is generally way more versatile, the gun and stabiliser make all the difference, also .50 cal for AA. Turan is a joke compared to M24.
The turan 3 is 4.0… also you have you have the mobility and first shot advantage over the turan, and unlike the turan you have the advantages of the light tanks like spotting, youre also better than the puma, better gun, the .50cal, vertical stabilizer, better armor.
Also the ebr is literally 5.3 it’s only advantage over the m24 is the mobility.
Yes, so logically, a worse tank should be lower. Though tbf moving the M24 to 4.0 would have practically 0 effect on how good it is. All it would do is ruin America’s 3.7 lineup.
Comparing M24 to overtired tanks is the No.1 way to get it moved down.
Lmao, comparing a heavy tank to a light tank is also as delusional as calling Pz.IV bad.
You’re just playing Puma wrong. You should be flanking with your Puma, not attacking tanks head-on.
3.0 Turan k/d v.s 2.0 M24 k/d begs to differ.
Turan is absolutely goated.
No, AMX-13FL11 is balanced at 4.3.
It and M24 were both under-BR’d.
They shouldn’t be the same BR as equally equipped medium tanks.
And Puma runs into M24 while “flanking”, and loses 4 out of 5 because M24 will fire first and has .50 cal just in case.
it is not better, they just have different roles.
It is also the No.1 way to get the m24 up, just because it goes agaisnt your narrative doesnt mean that they are as undertiered as youre claiming, specially they they are much higher br than the m24s, the amx 13 is not overtiered by a full br, even if you bring it down two steps to 3.7 you will need to send up the m24 as it is a better vehicle by a longshot…
The irony when you started to compare it with a medium tank…
It is the same with the m24 buddy.
I don’t see how 6s reload M61 shot with mediocre mobility for a light tank (lacking reverse speed) warrants 4.3 BR.
If it were 5s then maybe 4.0.
You can’t frontpen a Puma with a .50cal,so you’re already displaying how little you know abt this topic, and Puma being faster means you can easily set up before the M24 even arrives.
No not really. If you needa resort to referencing the weakest vehicles around, then clearly it ain’t too strong.
Because clearly comparing a fast medium and a slow light with a 0.3 br difference is the same as comparing a light tank with a heavy tank at a completely different br.
You’re seriously grasping at straws here.
In what way does you personally sucking at fighting the M24 equate to me being bad at playing the M24 (with 2.0 k/d btw).
What are you even saying? the taran is not a “fast” medium tank… it’s mobility is pretty much average, they only good part about it’s mobility is the reverse speed.
i have done better with the m24 than with the puma…
Was this when the Puma was 2.7?
could be, it’s being a while since i spaded it
It accelerates very well. Over long distances it’s not especially fast, but in CQC brawling it’s very useful. That’s an important quality for the Turan in particular aswell, since slow turret traverse would normally make a tank a bad brawler.
Your American M24 and Puma have the same K/D. I don’t think it would be too radical to assume you played em both around the same time, whilst your other M24 games are newer.
Even if that’s not the case, we all have certain tanks where we do especially well in, but that doesn’t mean the M24 is too powerful. Any light tank played by a pro fighting new players will look too strong for its br. If everyone was on the same skill level, the M24 would not stick out as far as balancing goes.
it has the same hp/ton as the 3.7 shermans, and still slower than the t34s, it is pretty much average by all means.
In CQC the vertical stabilizar is far more useful.
And my average between all the m24 has over twice the kd… it is safe to assume that it is better by all means.
Puma is a great scout tank. Under right conditions can even score some kills. It has enough mobility so with a perfect timing it can even ambush M24, but that’s assuming you predict your enemy’s movement, because you can as well just end up with wasting time for nothing.
M24 is simply a killer. It moves around the map faster than the enemy can react and can beat most medium tanks 1 v 1 by the virtue of stabiliser and good gun.
M4A2 is a good counter to M24, because it’s extremely hard to take out from the front. But M4A2 is a good counter to most tanks around its BR, haha.
M4A2 should be 4.3 in my opinion. Same with the Churchill III.
I would rather take the M4A2 in most cases than the M24 😅
The 3.3 Panzer IVs / M4s should probably move up to 3.7 to be honest, and the M24 / 3.7 Panzer IVs / M4s could probably go to 4.0.
No, any experienced player can perform just fine without a stabilizer.
“A better player performed better than a worse player. That means the tank the better player played was better.”
Tf kinda logic is that?
That’s why you don’t over-extend.
Yeah it’s a good tank, I’m not denying that, it just doesn’t warrant being moved up, especially higher than 4.0.
Shermans, T-34, Turan, and Cromwell can all do what the M24 can and better on a lot of maps.
So does an experience player can perform just fine with bad reverse speed or bad mobilty, but it doesnt take out the fact that the vertical stabilizer plays a much bigger role at CQC…
Im comparing my own stats buddy, also if you whant to have the averages, literally all m24 outperforms the puma, even the worse still has 50% better kd than the puma…
Old you was a worse player than new you.
No, stabilizer really doesn’t have that big of an advantage, especially with a tank that’s A) meant to be fast and B) is just one big weak spot.
Based on? you dont even know which m24 i have played more recently or if i have played them before than the puma, btw my first m24 that i have played was actually the japanese one also quite a long time ago as well.
/ + Turret traverse and reverse speed. Even armor. The turret is suprisingly tanky and can bounce shots you wouldn’t expect from a light tank.
