Did you know that the Chinese have T-34-85 with a extra machingun?
Did you know the chinese have the Dual cannon thing with proxy fuse?
Of course the USSR can’t have a good Heavy tank after the IS-2 which has been made bad from the insane cold war vehicle spam
Gaijin muliple times has said and done in version of tank that fixing a weak spot equales to a BR rase of 0.3br, the finnish one fixed the armor cheek weak spot and added a roof top machinegun
5.7 material
Well, if a T29 can frontally kill the IS-6 with the larger shell, then a long 76 should be more than capable.
And I am not over the main nations, while under rating Russia. I have played all these vehicles except the Ho-ri.
I’ve also played against all the vehicles on the list.
Gaijin uses pros / cons / player stats to balance vehicles. What I’m saying about some, especially the T26e5, is how does that not have good enough stats to be moved? It murders every game that isn’t 7.7, I mean like it’s always 1st on the team slaying everyone.
@AllNationEnjoyer i am constantly updating the list btw.
The common quote of people who like to have bully tanks.
I personally like the T-35-85E, the little beds don’t always save you from HEAT, but it’s really nice when annoying M-51 players are about.
And yes, I agree… not sure why the Finnish KV-1 is the same br as the Russian one.
As the Finnish ones turret can bounce the M4A3E2 rounds with ease, where as the Russian one cannot.
I mean, M44 can kill 8.0 tanks with ease. Does this mean it should be 8.3? No. This argument is invalid, sorry man.
Is the M44 stabilized? And can it survives low caliber HE? No.
Your argument is very poor
But I’ll gladly continue to destroy any enemy opposition, as I have more pen than some 8.0s, while being stabilized, and faster.
It’s a light tank that can kill anything it sees frontally. How isn’t it broken?
Does the APDS do the same damage as HE? No. While u in M44 oneshot everything, in M551 ur lucky man when u 3shot things. So is the stabilizer and weak armor the main point why it sits at 7.0? Like okay, then whos argument is invalid.
I mean a lot of top tier tanks especially German DM rounds have more pen than other nation rounds, they are also stabilized and fast. Why are they at same br as other nation tanks when they could have only APHE?
So from what I can see you are just mad that it destroys you frontally in your heavy tank and wants it gone from ur mm. There are more than enough tanks that are also capable of destroying frontally more thing that you can imagine. Does it mean they should be at higher br? No. BR DECOMPRESSION should happen. Not these nonsense “Br change suggestion”.
Yes? The first thing barely matters and the 2nd thing bumps it up in BR by a full 1.0, very much fine.
USSR cope.
If the T-34-85 isn’t 5.7 material neither are half of the tanks there.
Both guns have to go for tiny weakspots that are not practical unless the IS-3 is giving you an easy shot at them…
awful gun even for 6.7
no lol, just a solid tank.
It’s APDS struggles against Tiger II’s UFP so you’ll have to use same old turret cheek weakspot to go through. Same thing goes for IS-3 as well.
German M41 at 6.7 surely ignores armor much better than M551(76) but it doesn’t have a stabilizer, so I’d say 7.0 is still a decent BR for M551.
A lot of these are good, but then some others are very questionable if not wrong.
M50 6.7 > 7.3 (small size, quiet engine, ability to rapid fire 6 rounds, very easy to bush up).
The M50 isn’t a Rakaten/USH: The launchers are offset and require notable corrections when engaging targets at range to maintain accuracy, let alone trying hit a specific area or weakspot.
Add the fact that M443A1 has terrible spalling (prepare to center mass a Tiger 2 and turn the crew yellow) and there’s no way this thing should be sitting at 7.3 when way better vehicles exist at 6.7 and 7.0.
(Also, you really should have included the M26 Pershing going 6.3>6.7, it’s awful to play at 6.7 and was perfectly fine at 6.3.)
T92 7.0 > 7.3 (Tends to bounce or eat shells, fast, small, very easy to bush and hide, potent HEATFS)
The T92 is perfectly fine where it’s currently at.
A lot of very important traits get worse on the T92 in comparison to the M41A1 just for very minor upgrades like mediocre HEAT-FS and slightly faster reload that cause a whole BR jump to 7.0.
Luchs 7.3 > 7.7 (better Wiesel but bigger with a 360 degree turret rotation.)
The Type 87 RCV (P) is already insanely terrible at 7.7, and it has the exact same weapon but stabilized; we don’t need another terribly over BR’d 20mm.
Df105 8.0 > 8.3 (10 shot HEAT mag, with a 5 sec load time, can bounce early APFSDS, and eats auto cannon rounds).
There’s no way the DF105 should be at the same BR as vehicles like the AMX-10RC and MARS-15 💀
Both of them are WAY faster, both have APFSDS, both have laser rangefinders, and both have similiar levels of survivability; the DF105 is perfectly fine at it’s current BR.
Gepard 8.3 > 9.0 (often used to zoom to a flank and wipe half a team due to great APHE, and it’s APDS can kill the heaviest of tanks, also way too good of an aa for just 8.3, it can easily down helicopters, and planes with ease).
It’s on par with the AMX-30 S DCA, which was raised to 8.7. It should go to the same BR given 9.0 is pushing it way too far for an autocannon SPAA with no HE-VT when the exact same vehicle with MANPADS missiles is 9.7.
Itpsv Leopard 8.7 > 9.3 (being a better, and better armored Gepard, it’s strange it’s only been one br higher. 9.3 is a good fit for it though.)
Same reason for objection to Gepard BR increase. Itpsv’s hull armor is completetly useless when any hit to the turret will insta-kill it via ammo explosion, along the fact that the 2A4 hull’s composite is incredibly weak and gets lolpenned by 105mm M111 Hetz (the 2nd weakest 105mm APFSDS and insanely common above BR 8.3).