Please don't move the M26 to 6.7

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
123

A somewhat insignificant weakness if you don’t overextend and let tanks get on your flanks.

Not something you control, I can’t control every flank and have to rely on the team to also pay attention, and they won’t.
And being large still leaves you an easy target, you cannot hide behind other destroyed vehicles or objects like smaller tanks can, which has nothing to do with flanking or overextending.

They are about average in terms of medium tank speed.

In a straight line, not so much in cities.

Ok? Not sure how this is a weakness.

It’s a lack of mobility, acceleration, momentum, climbing slopes etc.

Third best in class after the 76mm Shermans and the T-34-85s, 0.7 degrees per second slower than the M4A3 76, one degree slower than the M4A1/2. Not exactly a weakness.

T-34-85 is 23.50, M4A3 76 is 19.7, Panther D is 5.6, Panther F is 14.10 and the others 18.8.
Still leaves them the worst turret rotation on the biggest platform that is the least agile and has a 7.80 second reload compared to the 6.25s on the 76 that gets a stabilizer on top of that, and on par with the T-34 reload that is just significantly more agile and better protected from all sides with troll slope armor.

Take a second and compare the Panther’s chances in close quarters versus a Firefly, a Challenger, a Comet, a T-34-85, an SA50, a Chi-Ri.

Comparing minor nations vs a major one, minor nations that are already very unlikely to fight alone opposed to major nations due to player count and rarely end up in a situation where they solely rely on their own lineup… cold day in hell if you somehow end up with a team of only Japan or Italy.

Firefly is 4.7 so facing that vs a Panther isn’t really a fair matchup anyways, but it still has faster turret rotation and reload.

Challenger has a 31 degree turret rotation, 5.4s. reload, lolpen rounds, neutral steering, fast acceleration so honestly quite capable.

Comet has some of the most stupid troll armor out there at least, also has that neutral steering and good speed that allows it to navigate city streets fast, beyond that it’s more similar to a Panther in terms of reload and turret rotation, but being a fast and nimble tank makes it more suited than a Panther.

Sa-50 has better turret rotation and on par reload speeds, beyond that doesn’t really hold an advantage, but it’s also a 5.0 compared to a 5.7-6.0 Panther, France gets the EBR at 5.3 as well however, and the FL10 so not sure why they’d rely on the SA-50.

Chi-Ri is just another overtiered Japanese vehicle, but it does get a 3.5 second reload for it’s initial engagement and has a 37mm which at least offers some defense against light vehicles, Japan just lacks a lineup here and Gaijin’s abhorrent BR decisions just amplify that problem.

IS-1 is more similar to a Panther, I’d probably prefer it but they both have pros and cons, but the IS-1 isn’t supported by another IS-1, and IS-1 and an IS-1 but instead has T-34s.

124

Which is why Panthers are false mediums. They’re turreted tank destroyers with enough mobility to get to a good spot early. The true mediums Germany has access to are the Tiger Is. Mobile, reactive, more survivable, great flankers. If I need to CQC, I’ll pick Tigers over Panthers, every single time.

1 Like
125

They have worse turret rotation, worse gun, same reload speed and less armor whilst still having a large barrel with easy to destroy muzzle brake and a bad armor profile with ammo stored at the front because Gaijin thinks that is funny, a benefit is a smaller profile that allows you to hide behind objects and scenery better, but the cupola on the H1 negates that so only the E is viable there.

126

Which would be noticeable if the Panthers had good turret rotation, but they both suck, so in a close quarters environment, you end up relying on your hull with both vehicles anyway. The difference is that the Tiger is much likelier to survive that sort of sudden hull aiming maneuver, whereas the Panther is dead.

Hard disagree.

The Panther’s advantage in flat pen (it pens as much at 1km as the Tiger does point blank) is only ever really relevant in long range engagements, which is why I said they’re basically tank destroyers.

In cities however, not only is that flat advantage much lessened by the point blank distance, but the much higher explosive filler of the Tiger’s round makes it much better at surviving in an environment where you might be swarmed by enemy reinforcements at any time. Panthers will more often require two shots to get a kill in CQC. Tigers will save you that time, and it can be a life or death difference.

It’s also easier to aim for weak spots when you’re up close, meaning that the difference in flat pen becomes even less important.

Sure. But in my experience, the - say, for example - American tanks with stab that might go straight for your muzzle brake in a Tiger, are going to be the same that can kill your turret crew in a Panther, with pretty much the same effect. And Panthers are much worse than Tigers at corner peeking and shoot & scoot tactics.

It’s bad by the standards of a heavy tank. If you treat it like a medium, it’s really no worse than the Panther’s, and more survivable in CQC because it’s more trolly.

That part is super annoying, yes.

127

From the front you’re a lot worse off, from the sides just as bad but a smaller target at least, angled it can be better but most things have zero problems going through an angled Tiger either.

128

Lmao, how does a person edit a screenshot from the old forum?

I posted the old forum post and showed the relevant section…you’ve been exposed.

You’re spamming this thread with irrelevant talk about 2020 and this is all you can manage…what a joke. You faked the quote and cut out key context and everyone knows.

Stop obsessing desperately over losses from 3 years ago and just give it up already.

129

Because as I said german tanks are not good for CQC which You tried to portray them to be:

“I think you’re being excessively harsh about and underselling the Germans’ general CQC capabilities.”

“Beneath, at and above that range, Germany is also paired commonly with other nations that complement them and augment their capabilities.”

Doesn’t change the fact that german tanks are not suited for CQC

Most of german tanks are not suited for CQC, can’t really find any that would be better than other nation vechicles

“Furthermore…what Germany generally has (average to above average armor/armament) is already quite nice for WT’s rendition of CQC fighting in itself, as much of WT RB GFs is CQC from the start to finish from map size alone.”

If in order to be good in CQC, You need to use other nation vechicles then that nation vechicles are good not german ones. German tanks are bad in CQC.

“Set map boundaries, hard cover and limited access points to certain areas (especially caps) mean two vehicles driving toward another will quickly find themselves in a CQC shootout regardless of exact distance just by the firing range set up by the funneling.”

If You drive Your tank for CQC battle, You will end up in CQC battle… doesn’t take sherlock to figure it out.

Can’t quote properly as it destroyes the comment, I hope You can figure out Your own replies.

1 Like
130

I personally still hold that is a bit too harsh on the matter and perhaps too sterile given what often happens in matches (where surprise/camping can factor in to engagements where these precise performance details become crucial).

However, I will acknowledge that you rightfully noted it’s a matter of relativism and thus your reasoning is entirely fair.

As I said, I’d say most of the relevant German tanks are ‘capable’ of use at CQC but not as optimized as some others’ vehicles…which is a pretty moderate view. (@Aegis270’s big post above is a pretty good rendition of my own general views.)

@ULQ_LOVER, see above…every day matches are played with German tanks at CQC.

Are most of them the best at this fighting envelope? Probably not. Can they make it work there? Many certainly have been used to success there.

So…‘not well suited’ is probably the harshest you can go even in the worst cases.

131

You edited the post just before you seeing i use it as signature in the old forum becuase was a big fail for your part. Thats why we can see “edited”. You went to slow and stp as usuall.

Im not the only one here remember your typical and silly comparisions. So wrong again.

Is great when a troll is unsmaked and marked, keep crying if you want but your days of trolling in WT forum have passed.

132

As people told You, german tanks are not suited for CQC and it can be seen in WT as USA/RUS tanks are doing much better in CQC, You even admitted it by saying:

“Germany has many US/SU tanks above 6.X which are reputedly better for CQC than their own native stuff.”

133

@Flak_Dancer lmao, nope–the big fail was yours

I posted the relevant excerpt from the post and it’s all visible…everyone can see the key parts you later removed.

It’s honestly a little strange you’re so defensive about the full context being seen now and so obsessive about a post from over 3 years ago.

I guess I really made you sore, eh?

Yeah…as I said before, this is all a matter of relativity. Read what I posted in prior posts, I already explained all of this.

134

Is basically the opposite, you added more parts thats why is “EDITED” and you can hide that.

Nah, but i dont want pathetic trolls here and probably thanks to me dont we have a endless discussion of people trying arguing with you and as usuall the small numbers of players try it of course dont agree with you.

135

He perfectly knows that but like a good troll will never admit it.

136

As I said, I’d say most of the relevant German tanks are ‘capable’ of use at CQC but not as optimized as some others’ vehicles

That’s the point though, I’m not saying they’re useless and unable to anything, but everything with a gun is ‘capable’… a Panzer IV is also capable at 6.7 to knock things out, doesn’t mean it’s on par with everything else.

Panther tank is fine at what it does, but there is nothing else to do what it cannot do, a Panther D + Panther A + Panther F + Panther G + Tiger H1 + Tiger E + Nashorn + Waffentrager + Jagdpanther just isn’t a versatile lineup, they all do the same thing for the most part and none of them do CQC.

It’s not the same thing as an IS-2 + IS-1 + T-34-85 + T-34-85 + PT-76 + ISU
Or an M4A3E2 + M18 + M6A1 + M4 + M4 + M36 + M36
Nor an EBR + Sa50 + M4A3E2 + M36 + Lorraine etc.

You rely on being matched with a different nation to do all those things, a 234/4 in the TT would have filled that gap, any sort of light and mobile vehicle that isn’t the 234/2 would fill that gap but nothing gets added.

2 Likes
137

Lmao, now you’re desperately citing typo corrections to run from what you did hahaha

That quip was there in full with its context before you removed it to fake your ‘quote’

I don’t see why you keep insisting on embarrassing yourself with all this chatter about 3 year old posts…you lost, why not move on?

He perfectly knows that but like a good troll will never admit it.

At this point, it is obvious you’re not much of a reader…I just wrote about that matter twice.

The irony of someone who is obsessively spamming this thread whining about 2020 posts calling other people names is not lost on me.

I feel sorry for you, but this is still pretty humorous…hahahaha

138

Desesperately??? dude you are the only one here looks like deseperate with endless spam of thats fake, i won you lose like a poor kid. Looks like that “EDITED” you didnt see was very painfull. Hours of schearching in the old forum for just fall in another fail LOL.

Said the guy cant stop reply LMAO.

Time to recognize you are unmasked and nobody agree with you.
descarga

139

Nope…there were no major edits. The context & commentary of the excerpt were always there, you just removed them later to fake your quote.

It is flatly bizarre and certainly a fail that you are so obsessed with an old post you were called out on years ago.

Quit derailing the topic with these pointless attempts at litigating your lost cause.

140

“Not having a use” is not a good argument for balance.

Imagine for sake of argument that Gaijin made 4 exact copy/pastes of a Pz IV F2, with just different historical camos or something, all in the same tech tree.

In arcade mode, it would be literally impossible to play all 4 of them, since you only get 3 spawns. Would that therefore be a good argument for making one of them go down in Arcade BR from 3.3 to 3.0 “so that it has a use”?

What if they made 7 copy/pastes, should 3 of them go down to 3.0 then one of them go down to 2.7 next, so it has a use?

141

Your comparison relies on vehicles that are all extremely similar or even identical.

The M26 is not identical to the T26E5. It is basically strictly inferior.

142

So what? My example is purely to show the illogicalness of using “Has no use” as a basis for balance. Nothing more nothing less. It’s not supposed to reflect the M26 situation, it’s purely to show that that line of logic is invalid.

If you have some OTHER argument for why the M26 should not go up in BR, other than “not having a use” then okay, what is it? THAT argument is illogical though.