if proving my point and proving that somebody’s wrong is a disrespectful behavior then pls tell me.
is this overinflated ego???
they only tank that can be better than it is the T-34-57 with it’s powerful gun and traverse.
no it isn’t. and btw didn’t u say Pz.IV H was fine where it is? then why are u saying it’s compatible with T-34-57? are u saying it would be fair at 4.7?
if the logic of this topic is that Pz.IV H should be moved up to 4.0, then that means Tiger II should be moved up to 7.0 since it has good cannon, armor, mobility and reload all in a single tank, Panther D should move up to 5.7 since it has good armor, cannon, mobility and reload too, Leopard I should be moved up to 8.3 since it has good mobility, cannon, reload and no-armor = best-armor.
german tanks will always be overtiered, and that’s fine, every nation has it’s upsides and downsides, i don’t feel changing that would be fair.
meant to say not comparable the t34 57 is superior in literally every regard by a large margin
1 Like
oh, then i agree with u ;)
btw u can edit ur comment if u wrote something wrong.
Sherman lll/lV is easily the most pay to win vehicle at 3.7 lol
1 Like
I think you’re overestimating the Chaffee. It’s basically a smaller Sherman. still relatively large for a light tank, and it can be taken out fairly easily by most autocannons at its BR. For example, the short 75mm AMX-13 is smaller and presents a lower profile.
Also, I’d appreciate keeping the tone respectful. There’s no need to make it personal… We can all disagree without it turning hostile.
The lacking a hull MG makes it pay to win?
It’s a M4A2 without .50cal at 3.7 but significant better mobility.
It’s basically a M4A3E8 with a short 75mm.
It’s easily the most effective tank, if it was 4.0 but it being 3.7 is a real joke.
2 Likes
It’s wrong anyway. Gaijin just won’t nerf it.
2 Likes
It’s worse than 3.3’s, let alone 3,7’s.
1 Like
Feel free to load up a custom battle with a friend and test it out.
I’ve had this discussion many, many times before with people, and no matter how stubborn they were in regards to how the tool should be used, they always (at least the ones that tested it in a custom) came to the conclusion that my results were correct.
No offense intended, but this is always what inexperienced players will say when confronted with their sub-optimal stats.
Meanwhile, the best players in this game consistently have positive winrates. That’s isn’t just a wild coincidence.
- Bad players will influence the outcome of a battle negatively.
- Good players will influence the outcome of a battle positively.
Across a larger sample size, this will be reflected in the statistics.
Because a 3.7 tank with:
- Among the armour of any 3.7.
- Great mobility (500hp engine in a Sherman at 3.7).
- Fantastic firepower.
- Absolute best gun handling characteristics of any medium tank at 3.7.
- Decent survivability.
Clearly isn’t good, right? /s
There’s a reason why the Sherman III/IV is generally considered undertiered and a bit of a clubber.
No, you’re not.
You’re less angled and closer.
1 Like
Bro i have a 36% WR in the T-44, however i do good on it.
Huh sure…
Cool excuse.
Spoiler alert: the tank u showed in the video wasn’t even a Pz.IV H, but a Pz.IV G which has worse firepower
Secondary armement is also super important, if its a cal50. You can kill alot lights and air with it. It matters alot and should be included.
1 Like
Insane mobility, M4A3 hull at 3.7, and the insane gun performance. The ONLY downside I see is it being so tall that Godzilla looks short
reaction time is everything in CQC its far easier to 2v1 in M4 than the PZ IV for this reason
2 Likes
very big advantage to have a 50cal as you can machine gun walls down for shots when you enemy cant and wont likely see you
1 Like
you just removed one of the very well know weakspots of the sherman that people shoot now it has a completely smooth and flat front plate that you can angle its the only sherman at the tier with said front plate its not like the 3.7 M4 which has the hull buldges for the drivers which you can shoot
it is by the very definition pay to win its basically a heavy tank
see the bumps where driver and bow gunner are these are known weakspots on sherman models the M4 III/IV is the best 3.7 sherman for removing them
see the flat and easy angle armor
it removes three easy to hit weakspots making it near impossible to kill in a 1v1 with a russian 76 or american 75
it has very few small weakspots left only 2 that i can think of that are actually hittable targets which are the manlet and the bolt seam for the transmission case on the front
and the weak spot on manlet barely counts cause its not hittable at range
The Sherman III/IV would be the easiest thing to fix if it was accurately the Sherman IB/III.
1 Like
This comment betrays the fundamental aspect of the discussion. The Pz IV is a tank destroyer. Like most tank destroyers you can uptier it without issue so long as the gun works. You can easily play Dicker Max at 5.7 too, so long as you’re sitting back and sniping, but that doesn’t mean the Dicker is 5.7 material, it just means that it’s relatively BR-agnostic. Wherever you put it, its mobility will always be terrible, its armour will always be unreliable, but if the gun works, you can be a good TD.
That’s a good reason for including it as a specialised option in later lineups, but it’s not a good reason to send it up in BR. The combo of bad mobility + bad survivability incentivises you to stay at range, so you don’t influence matches. In WT you need to get up close to win most of the time.
1 Like
You’re comparing it to the wrong vehicles. You should be comparing it to all the 3.3 Tank Destroyers, which it’s clearly better than every single one.
Just because it’s labelled as a Medium Tank doesn’t mean it plays like one. This is why the A30 Avenger was reclassified from a Tank Destroyer to a Medium Tank, the M18 was reclassified from a Tank Destroyer to a Light Tank, or the Valentine’s being labelled as Medium Tanks when they’re clearly Heavy Tanks.
Pz IV F2 compared to the other German TD’s:
StuG III F (3.3 RB):
- The only advantages is better zoom and being a smaller target.
- Same gun.
- Worse armour.
- Less crew.
- Lower top speed (forward).
- No MG’s.
- Lower ammo capacity.
- No turret.
StuG III G (4.0 RB):
- Better zoom and smaller target.
- L/48 instead of the L/43.
- Better front and rear armour.
- Less crew.
- Lower top speed (forward).
- Worse power-to-weight.
- No MG’s.
- Lower ammo capacity.
- No turret.
So a 0.7 increase for the StuG’s means an extra 30mm of front armour and 8mm more penetration on the APHE. Whereas, foldered with the Pz IV F2 is the Panzer IV G. Which also has the increased armour, at the same BR.
Even compare it to other nations TD’s at 3.3. The Na-To has a better gun and 1 extra crew, but everything else is worse. The 75/34 M43 has better armour, and that’s basically it. The YaG-10 (29-K)? Might troll someone who didn’t bring HE or has no MG. The closest comparison is the M10. The Pz IV F2 is basically an enclosed M10 with 3x the turret traverse.
1 Like