Of course not, but again with having much more experience even in said vechicle I know that it should be at 6.0 as the vechicle itself is not mobile, doesn’t have any armor and HEAT is not reliable.
So what different things have You provided to the conversation?
Yea… right.
Just to be clear, this is about the M-51?
Again, lolwut???
It still faces things like the late IS-series and it can barely scratch them. Best to leave it as that.
The way you have worded it implies that all ATGMs are like this. There are some like the Shturm-S, TOW and Swingfire to name a few that are both fast and maneuverable in their own right. Some can even vertically attack you even from behind cover.
As for the exposure part, there is of course the aforementioned Shturm-S and Swingfire.
This is only the case for the slower ATGMs like the Type 60 and Malyutka. And what if they somehow ambush you?
Again, depends on the person’s skill.
Even with your tirade, I shall also remain by my own opinion and shall not back away from it. None of us can budge each other from our takes at this point; hence proving how stubborn both of us are with our opinions.
A completely unrelated note; This entire fracas could be adapted into an Ace Attorney-style video haha
No ,that is my point
That is the point you are missing,for many of the players complain who about the M51 none of that matters it’s all about era otherwise the M51 would just be another WW2 glass canon.
Most have as the M51 and M109 rarely survive long enough to achieve nothing more that ruin the WW2 experience at 6BR such as it was.
Seems like so many players have big expectations for the WW2 game featuring the legendary Panthers and Tigers,facing Fury and the mighty IS Russian tanks then find the game jammed with Cold War spam making the legends obsolete because WT does not acknowledge eras as we know.
It is a complaint that will never go away.
Even if the OP feels the M51 is slightly OP ,calling for it to move to 7.7 indicates the issue is more than just balance.
By simply knowing these tanks I have 50% of your authority. By playing the game and this BR I have 80% of your authority. By playing M-51 I have 90% of your authority. That’s more than enough to undermine your argument, as it’s weak to begin with.
The gun is very good for a 6.0. Regardless of our personal experiences the fact of the matter is that it’s a gun that is not lacking by any means on AMX-30, which is at 8.0.
The M-51 as a platform, while not particularly amazing and much worse than AMX-30, is more than enough to utilize the gun for sniping. It’s even better for hulldown in some regards than AMX-30, because the turret is smaller, but of course it’s still much worse.
The gun is so powerful, that M-51 being a bad platform at 8.0 doesn’t justify it being at 6.0. The tank as a whole is much closer in performance to AMX-30, than a god damn Sherman 76.
Since the gun is too strong and unfair for the tanks at 6.0, it definitely can deal with 8.0 opponents, the platform doesn’t make it impossible to effectively utilize the gun for sniping and there are historical premises to put it next to T-54s, it should be put at 8.0. To emphasize that AMX-30 is a better tank, BR decompression should be done with AMX-30 being put at 8.3 for example.
I would even argue that for example T-54 1951 is a worse tank for sniping than M-51. M-51 has better optics, twice the gun depression, normal turret rotation (doesn’t matter much, but still) and arguably better HEAT shells with slightly less shell velocity and TNT equivalent, but more pen. Of course the main advantage of the T-54 though are powerful APHE shells, which easily one shot all early western MBTs, but when encountering a well-armored enemy, M-51 would be better.
Yes, top speed of 38kph is decently fast and it reaches it decently quickly even with a very bad crew and gear shifts. It’s also pretty agile, it’s not hard to turn this tank around 180 degrees. It’s definitely much more mobile than something like a Tiger 2.
What?
From the ones you listed I would consider only Shturm-S to be fast, when compared to tank shells, but even it is just 550m/s. ATGMs aren’t a bigger threat than shells for unarmored tanks. A long 88mm 1000m/s APHE shell is more dangerous.
I would like to bring your attention to the Amx-13-90, it has an auto loaded 90mm cannon firing heatfs.
It is faster, it has a faster reload, it is smaller, and it is overall a much better tank than the M-51. Somehow, just because of a gun, the M-51 should be a higher BR? I don’t understand how it should be higher than 6.7.
You’re right, this thread is about M-51, but the issue is much, much larger and basically an overhaul of the BRs is needed. AMX-13-90 should also be much higher, it’s a very good scout tank, irl it was a very successful tank with many countries buying them.
A top speed of 38 km/h is not “decently fast”, not at this BR rating, and much less at the BR you are proposing of 8.0. If I’m not mistaken it is quite literally the worst top speed that any medium tank (or tanks) has in this BR range.
Edit: After checking further, the Centurion Mk.2 takes the cake with 35 km/h.
The only reason the M-51 reaches its top speed “quickly” is because the top speed is precisely low as I’ve already stated.
But if you compare the amount of time it takes the M-51 to get up to speed, it is quite literally comparable to the Tiger II.
A normal Tiger II (H) takes 20 seconds to reach 35 km/h, a Tiger II (H) SLa.16 does 17 seconds, and the M-51 does 16 seconds (and yes, these tests were done on the same exact road on the test drive, with the same exact crew skills, those being none).
This is the only thing I agree with, which is that it is not hard to traverse the hull of the tank. But neither are most tanks at this BR, specially not mediums, all of which have better hull traverse or effectively identical hull traverse rate.
As a medium tank, the mobility of the M-51 is simply bad. The horsepower/ton is horrid at just 11.5, and the transmission limits the top speed both forwards and reverse. It is only good when you compare it to cumbersome heavy likes, like you have done, and even so, those cumbersome heavies like the Tiger II do not fall far behind. Lest not forget the Tiger II has a far greater reverse speed.
You missed the point.
M-51’s mobility is nothing to be proud of, but it’s not terrible to a point that it becomes a significant handicap. The tank that is actually handicapped by it’s mobility is something like a Waffentrager Krupp-Steyr or Sturer Emil.
Waffentrager is very similar to M-51, having a turret, a very good gun, bad armor and bad mobility. Waffentrager however, is a very bad platform, to a point it’s hard to use the fantastic gun you have, which is not the case with M-51.
With Waffentrager it’s a struggle to reach 20kph with armor so bad it can be 50 cal-ed, that’s quite an achievement if you ask me. It has 140hp with 8.59hp/t, while M-51 has 460hp with 11.5 hp/t.
By the time you reach 20kph in a Waffentrager, you reach 30kph in an M-51. You reach 10kph in M-51 basically instantly and 20kph in like a second. In Waffentrager your cruising speed is 10-25kph, only sometimes you can your top speed of 35 kph. In M-51 your cruising speed is 20-38kph.
M-51 is a very mediocre, but not terrible platform. You can’t get 50 cal-ed or killed by regular HE rounds, getting from point A to point B is not a struggle, nothing is limiting the movement of your gun and you don’t get kicked back by the recoil, unlike in Waffentrager.
The only concern for M-51 is it’s size, but if you play hulldown, your turret is a very small target and can even bounce sometimes or do volumetric magic.
M-51 being at 6.0 makes a 5.7 Waffentrager look like a joke.
In my opinion this isn’t a problem related to the M-51. The way I see it, the Waffentrager and other tank destroyers that make huge sacrifices just to have powerful guns are always going to be jokes. The M-51 doesn’t even come into that discussion for me.
its a glass cannon… sure. you can kill tigers, but they can easily just shoot you and kill you… its like playing an m18.
If that’s the case, then I would consider M-51 as one of those jokes. For me it is in that category.
I think that it is more likely that they just want the m51 to go up in br and will use any reasoning to argue for it.
The M-51 is definitely in there, but it is less extreme.
I can summarize the problems with these tanks as follows:
If they are too low BR, their firepower stops mattering because it is simply not needed. Firepower being too overkill means that you can just play another tank that makes less sacrifices but still has more than good enough firepower.
If they are too high BR, their firepower stops mattering because common vehicles at that BR have closer or even just the same firepower, or there are even other “overkill” tank vehicles with even greater firepower, which makes the original vehicle completely obsolete.
The problem with the M-51 being 8.0 is precisely the 2nd point. You’ve stated that the Leopard and AMX-30 have similar firepower, but the tanks themselves are far superior, including their firepower. Even something like the M48 with it’s 90 mm HEAT-FS is more than enough to penetrate any tank you need to penetrate frontally, and other aspects of the firepower of the M48 (reload, velocity) are simply better.
If Tigers were replaced by T-54s/T-55s nothing would change, it would still be a glass canon, so what’s the problem then.
I “just” want to make it go up in BR, because I just want more historical authenticity. It can go up in BR and it should go up in BR, if historical authenticity is considered at all.
Whenever people hear the word historical they go crazy and come up with some crazy straw mans. All I want is for historical authenticity to actually be a factor. right now people say balance>realism, but there are zero steps done to improve realism. It seems like you think I should be thankful that Maus doesn’t fight an Abrams.
If M-51 goes up to 8.0 the world will not end, M-51 will not be unplayable by any mean arguments, and it will contribute to a better experience in WW2 tanks. It’s the same for many other cold war tanks at 7.7 and below.
That performance is in-line with all his other tanks, and lower than some such as his Tiger 2H performance.
@comeandseevx
All 155 Howitzers use WW2 technology irrelevant of their BR.
Same HE shell for everything.
M-51 is using technology seen on other tanks at and below its BR.
He performs better in Tiger H1 and Tiger 2H.
Citing player skill is irrelevant to this topic.
We’re discussing the tank, not how skilled players are.
Yes it would. Date is irrelevant, and is an arbitrary unreal thing.
My M-51 stats BTW:
That is if you want M-51 to be competitive/meta. For me it’s not necessary that M-51 is competitive, playable is enough.
My definition of balance is that maybe only a few tanks are meta, but everything is playable and nothing is straight up overpowered. Adding historical accuracy to this means that the meta tanks should be the ones that were historically “meta”.
I would play M-51 at 8.0 over M48, 105mm HEAT is just so much better than 90mm HEAT. 105mm for HEAT is a threshold similar to 75mm for APHE.
It shouldn’t be that much higher. 90mm heatfs loses all its advantages at 8.3 when apfsds starts to become common. I was just comparing the tanks to each other to point out how bad of an idea an 8.0 M-51 is.
When 6.7-7.7 got decompressed, they compressed 8.0-9.3. Max br should be increased like it was for air, we have 13.7 for air and still sit with 11.7 for tanks. To play for example American 11.3 with CAS you need to take F-4E lmao.
No they didn’t.
7.7 went to 8.0, 9.3 went to 9.7, 11.0 to 11.3, 11.3 to 11.7.
There was no compression.
Decompression wouldn’t change M-51’s BR relative to Panthers.
