T32 and T32E1 BR reduction

[Aegis270]

I’m not arguing the gun is bad. Which is why I’m advocating for it to receive a significant reload buff, so that at least you taken out of the fight for quite as long between bounces. It’s advantages in armor and mobility are no longer enough to counteract the glacial reload.

But the T32’s turret is entirely immune to every APHE round it can face, with the single exception of the IS-7 which can overpressure through the mantlet. Meanwhile every T-54 is vulnerable to APHE rounds with more performance than the T32’s by shooting next to the gun on either side. Even Tiger IIs have a small chance of going through at close range. And, as you say, it’s going up two BR jumps already.

Moving the T32s down to a place where they fight tanks with nothing but APHE is just more BR compression, not decompression. How exactly do you fight a reasonably well positioned T32 in a Tiger II? Or an IS-3? Hell, how do you fight a T32E1 at all?

The T32E1 is a special case because it’s armor is entirely binary. You either have no chance against it’s armor, or you can cut right through it at it’s strongest. So where you place it determines whether or not it’s going to be laughably OP, or difficult to play. I think the new 7.7 is a reasonable spot for it, where it faces a decent mix of tanks that can and can’t lolpen it at it’s own tier, so long as it gets a reload buff.

[SpardaSon21]

@Aegis270

How exactly do you fight a reasonably well positioned T32 in a Tiger II?

How do you fight a reasonably well positioned Tiger II in a T32? Its front hull is impenetrable to everything save the IS-7, the turret cheeks are almost impossible to hit at range due to their small size, your barrel is just as long and vulnerable as the KT’s, it reloads twice as fast as the T32… Repeat for the IS-3, which has just as much effective armor as the T32 and the 122 gets Russian APHEBC slope modifiers to wreck your day if you expose your hull.

As to the T32E1, at 7.7 it will be facing lolpen 20pdr APDS rounds on two-plane vert stabs that will ignore its mantlet, the SACLOS Konkurs and MILAN, the L7A1 on the Vickers… need I go on? Of course its already facing those since those tanks are all 7.3 right now! The other US 7.7 heavy tank is the M103, which is arguably over-BR’d and is notably not moving up despite being Cold War armor and possessing Cold War rounds. So I suggest you come up with a good reason for those tanks to continue sharing the same BR.

[Aegis270]

Assuming the Tiger II is hulldown and you have the option to be, you can just trade shots until you hit his turret face. It’s a small target, but it’s far from an impossible shot. Meanwhile, he can do nothing but barrel you.

As for the IS-3, barrel and track, aim for the turret ring, or just sit at range hull down and laugh as he bounces round after round off you. You’ve got a sizable edge in mobility and gun depression, you can choose the fight a lot easier than he can.

Both tanks only have the advantage if you missplay and get caught out of cover. If positioned correctly, they don’t have a hope in hell of killing you. You struggle to kill them in return, but you do have a chance. They do not.

You keep focusing on the tanks that can lol-pen the T32s, but not on the various ones at or below that BR that stand no chance. The Ho-Ri, T54s that main APHE, every Soviet heavy, the entire German 6.7 lineup, most of the French tanks at the tier, even 90mm HEAT if hulldown. And that’s just at their current tiers. There are just as many if not more tanks that can’t pen it as those that can, and most of those that can are moving up. Plus the recent nerf to APDS and to ATGMs make them much less reliable than they used to be.

A heavy tank should never be immune to the majority of what it fights, it only need enough armor to defeat weaker guns and bounce poorly placed shots. Which the T32s have against most of what they’re going to fight.

As for the M103, it actually has frontal weakspots. The turret ring and corners of the LFP both give even 6.7s a way through the armor consistently. Plus the limited gun depression means it can’t sit hulldown as easily as the T32E1 can. If I’m in a Tiger II H, I’d prefer to fight an M103 over a T32E1, since at least against the former I have a chance to pen him frontally.

[sartt]

you already know thats too much work for players who play… certain nations that think they can keep playing the point and click game on U.S Tanks like they are going up against the Over- tiered shermans. I’ve actually had players rage at me in game because i angle my tank at 25- 30 degrees in game and they can’t penetrate it.

[MiseryIndex556]

You complained early 90mm HEATFS was ineffective agains the T32 and T32E1. I show that isn’t true, so you move the goal post. You think they should be judged entirely by the mantlet, instead of the vehicle as a whole. A Tiger II H facing 76mm Jumbo is far less balanced than a T32 facing a Panther. Even if the T32 and T32E1 were to go back to 7.0, it would be balanced because the T32 has to work as hard to kill almost anything it sees as they do to kill it. It’s not about the T32 or what makes it balanced. It’s about the fact people think US tanks should be easy to kill. They should have no viable qualities.

[SpardaSon21]

@Aegis270

Assuming the Tiger II is hulldown and you have the option to be, you can just trade shots until you hit his turret face. It’s a small target, but it’s far from an impossible shot. Meanwhile, he can do nothing but barrel you.

As for the IS-3, barrel and track, aim for the turret ring, or just sit at range hull down and laugh as he bounces round after round off you. You’ve got a sizable edge in mobility and gun depression, you can choose the fight a lot easier than he can.

The T32 will need to get lucky to pen the KT past 500m. As to the turret ring… you do realize the T32 has its own shot trap there under the mantlet?

As to the German 6.7 lineup. like say, the Tiger II (H), Ferdinand, and Jagdtiger? The first two having the long 88mm and armor sufficient to be resistant against the T32’s 90mm up to 500m, the last one being immune to anything besides APCR and possessing a 128mm? Oh, how about the 105mm armed KT at 6.7 that has an aced reload of .9 seconds slower than the 90mm T32 and a p/w ratio all of 1.81 worse!

I can’t tell you about the Ho-Ri since I haven’t seen many, a T-54 that mains APHE has the T32’s gun but better thanks to reload speed and Soviet slope modifiers plus a lower profile and smaller size.

As to the French… they’re astoundingly fast, have the AMX 13-90 that slings 320mm HEAT-FS, and should not expect to fight a heavy tank of any sort frontally.

[Aegis270]

Now you’re just making stuff up. You said 90mm HEATFS can pen the mantlet. I point out that while they can pen it, the spall shield ensures that it does little to no damage. And I’m judging the T32 by it’s turret front because that’s how it’s supposed to be played. Defensibly, hull down, and offering only it’s turret front to the enemy. Can it always achieve this, on all maps and BRs? No, obviously not, but we judge a tank by what it can do when it’s played correctly, not when you shove it into positions it doesn’t excell in.

This may be something you’re not ready to hear, but if you get a map that the T32 doesn’t work on, you don’t have to spawn it. The American 7.3 lineup isn’t massive, but you have two (Fairly) mobile mediums with HEAT if you’re in a game where the gun can’t work and the options for hulldown combat are limited. You’re trying to shove a square peg into a round hole and complaining that it won’t work. I’m saying if you hold it back and wait until you have a square hole to put it in, if you buff the reload it’s totally workable.

I don’t know where you people are getting the idea that I haven’t played the T32 or just want it to be an easy kill. I managed a 1.4 KDR in it. You know how I did that? By respecting it’s weaknesses and putting it where it works, rather than just assuming that because it says “Heavy Tank”, it should be able to charge down anything it wants without fear of being penetrated in return. I want the reload buff, and depending on how the BR shuffle works you might be able to convince me it needs to go down by 0.3 BR. But saying it belongs at 7.0 (Let alone the E1), where it gets to curbstomp 6.0s, is laughable.

[MiseryIndex556]

It can pen the mantlet. What you want is a vehicle that serves no purpose. You want a vehicle that is blatantly inferior to anything else on the battlefield. Yes, it has strong frontal armor, but so does the Jagdpanther, the Ferdinand, Jagdtiger, Tiger II H, Tiger II SLA relative to the guns they face. There isn’t a single US tank that can defeat the glacis plate of the Tiger II with full caliber AP. There isn’t a single US light or medium tank below 6.7 that can frontally pen the Tiger II H or Jagdtiger with full caliber AP. Why do those vehicles get a pass? The Tiger II H at 6.7 is far more potent than the T32E1 would be at 7.0. The long 88 is BR for BR probably the best gun in game. Its on a chassis that is moderately mobile and is immune to the bulk of non APDS or HEATFS rounds it may face. Some how, that gets a green light to you. Its ok if the Tiger II H is a 6.7 T32. You’re fine with that.

The T32 was 7.0 for years and was fine. That was before the addition of HEATFS, ATGMs and other potent anti armor measures. The T32 and T32E1 were dumped at their current BRs because too many players think US tanks should be point and click. Any US tank that presents the slightest challenge results in constant complaints.

[Aegis270]

You’re unironically comparing ~300mm of frontal turret armor with a spall shield that renders it immune to every conventional and some HEAT it faces, to 180mm of flat turret armor that can be penned by the majority of guns it can face.

Just to quickly correct your mistakes:
The M103 can easily UFP a Tiger II from 500m out with APBC. This makes it one of only two nations capable of doing so with conventional rounds, the other being the French long 120mm.

There are currently three medium or light vehicles at or below 6.7 that can pen the Tiger II H with conventional rounds, the AMX M4 and the two Charioteers. Everyone else, like the Americans, has to use HEAT, APDS, or APCR. All of which rip right through the Tiger II or Jadgtiger with ease. The Americans certainly don’t lack for vehicles that can do this either, as the M41, T92 (Which doesn’t even get a conventional round), M56, M50, Pershing, T25, M4/T26 and M36B2 have rounds that easily punch through the turret. In fact, every tank the Americans have that can see a Tiger II or Jadgtiger, with the exceptions of the Easy 8, Jumbo 76 and Hellcat can deal with them frontally.

There’s really no point continuing this. You’re blinded by your “America suffers” bias. Hence why you keep strawmanning me as someone who just wants American tanks to suffer. I’ve literally said over and over again it needs a reload buff, but you’re only happen if it gets to roll over Tiger IIs every game with impunity, apparently.

[MiseryIndex556]

Yes, because the 180mm turret is equally immune to the majority of what it faces, while being a lower BR and having a superior gun. Your only argument is that the mantlet of the T32 is strong, so all other factors are irrelevant. The T32’s strength is the mantlet. The Tiger II H’s strength is the gun. The turret face making it immune to a large segment of the tanks it faces is just a bonus. Oh, at the M103 can only defeat the glacis of the Tiger II at point blank or if its firing from an elevated position. The glacis at its construction angle offers 301mm of protection against the 120 AP, while the AP has 306mm of pen. And that’s the most powerful solid AP fielded.

The T32 has a strong mantlet but if you shoot the edges, even 305mm HEAT will go through and kill the gunner or loader.

See, I’m not saying it shouldn’t roll over Tiger IIs. I’m saying it shouldn’t be facing tanks that it can’t fight. I want it to be at a fair BR. You want it to be at a BR where it doesn’t function as a heavy tank.

[CodyBlues]

I’d say if you bring the Maus down then yeah.

[JNLK250]

The t32 is somewhat playable at 7.3 but the t32e1 is completely unviable at 7.7 your armor is non existent, the mobility is horrendous and your gun can’t pen anything. They should be moved to 7.0 and 7.3 for sure. There are still many tanks even at lower br’s that can easily pen t32s with heat and apds. American cant ever have anything nice

[sartt]

[quote=“sartt, post:18, topic:13151, full:true”]
you know… i talked about this with one of gaijin employees on their stream, you know what he said? " No 6.7 tanks would be able to kill them frontally " meanwhile he ignores the Jadgtiger, King Tiger and other tanks at 6.7 on other nations that can’t be penetrated by tanks in its same BR, even though there are 4 weak spots on the T32s that you can pen with 5.7 tanks, but it would seem if some nation can’t penetrate any U.S Heavy tank people whine bitch and complain and gaijin uptiers the entire U.S TT line, it shows their favoritism, and why i haven’t spent any money on this game in a long time.
[/quote]lol @ the kids who keep hiding my messages i’ll just re post them over and over again. cope

[FlipAllTheTables]

@Aegis270

The M103 can easily UFP a Tiger II from 500m out with APBC. This makes it one of only two nations capable of doing so with conventional rounds, the other being the French long 120mm.

And other completely untrue things that get thrown around with no actual fact checking. Neither the M103 or the AMX-50 Surbaissé can penetrate the UFP of the Tiger II at any range with an >50% chance when using their APBC rounds, unless they shoot from above or are so close that they have to use their gun depression to shoot into the UFP. In both cases you are nullifying the actual angle of the UFP.

The only tank in the game that can penetrate the upper plate of a Tiger II using a full bore AP round is the Object 279, which also just so happens to be the tank with the most powerful full bore AP round in the game. It also sits at 8.7 so it will never once find a Tiger II unless someone decides to uptier themselves.

@Aegis270

The Americans certainly don’t lack for vehicles that can do this either, as the M41, T92 (Which doesn’t even get a conventional round), M56, M50, Pershing, T25, M4/T26 and M36B2 have rounds that easily punch through the turret.

And more fact checking as the M4/T26 does not get APCR, unless you mean that it can pixel hunt on the cupola or the gunner sight weak spot, but that wouldn’t fall into “easily punch through the turret”, now would it.

Edit: Adding these images inside a spoiler to show how the M103 most definitely cannot easily go through the UFP of the Tiger II at 500 meters.

Spoiler

120 mm APBC versus 150 mm at 50º has a below 50% chance of penetration even at point blank.

Going into an arcade test drive (so that it shows the precise distance) and shooting the Tiger II with the M103.

Penetration at 30 meters because I need to aim downwards to hit the UFP (therefore decreasing the angle from the normal 50º, and decreasing the effectiveness of the armor)

[AurenKarach]

I’m a German main. I am, however, very sympathetic to the overall thrust of the argument regarding the T32 and E1. Generally speaking, all heavies in-game have a bad time. I greatly disagree with Gaijin’s idea of balance when it comes to heavies, and I can think of several Allied heavies that are grossly overtiered, for example the Black Prince. So, don’t take what I’m about to say as a general disagreement with your whole argument, but as a more specific nitpick.

I don’t see why you need to say factually incorrect claims, to support your opinion on balance.

You claim:

“There isn’t a single US light or medium tank below 6.7 that can frontally pen the Tiger II H or Jagdtiger with full caliber AP.”

And @sartt here claims:

“meanwhile he ignores the Jadgtiger, King Tiger and other tanks at 6.7 on other nations that can’t be penetrated by tanks in its same BR”

What Sartt says is especially egregious. M-51, Ontos, Scorpion, ASU-85, T-44-100, Centurion, stop me any time. All these tanks either lolpen (in the case of HEAT-FS) or can definitely pen a Jagdtiger’s frontal weak spots, and even one-shot it, if the player knows where to aim.

The Jagdtiger DOES have frontal weak spots, in fact, the same frontal weak spots shared by many heavies at this BR (a point I’ll return to later). In particular, lower front plate and machine gun port. Not to mention that barrel damage is obnoxiously frequent, and we all know how that one ends.

Given the ammo placement on the Jagdtiger, hitting these weak spots can result in a one-shot. In particular, protection is the lowest at the very corners of the LFP, right next to the tracks; even a T45 APCR round pens both these weak spots, and is likely to cause decent damage, especially if it hits the ammo. While sub calibre, that’s a shell you find on the 5.3 Jumbo…

T-44-100 to the lower front plate results in ammo rack detonation. Ontos, well that’s a point and click adventure. T92 as well. Some APDS can get through the superstructure… I could go on. Trust me, I play the thing a lot. It’s strong, and it can take some damage, but it’s not impenetrable. Even M41 Bulldogs, light vehicles below 6.7, can in fact frontally damage the Jagdtiger if they’re not in an unfavourable position. They don’t lolpen it of course, but it’d be bizarre if they could.

Besides, this is exactly how heavy vehicles are supposed to work. How many lights and mediums at 4.3 - 5.3 can frontally pen the Jumbo unless they aim for the machine gun port? Exactly.

Now we come to the Tiger II.

No one who knows what they’re doing plays the Tiger II as a heavy. Not even with the recent BR changes. And that’s not just because you frequently meet the aforementioned lolpenners, but because its weak spots are well known, and almost perfectly symmetrical with the weak spots of its American counterparts.

Lower front plate. Machine gun port. Flat turret cheeks (vs flat gun mantlet in the American case).

Yes, the upper glacis is great. But even if you ignore all vehicles that can lolpen it, the truth is, no player who knows what they’re doing is ever going to bother with your upper glacis. They’ll go for the weak spots, every time. As they should.

Now, here’s the thing. Turret armour is always more important than hull armour in this game. You can mitigate the lack of hull armour by using cover and terrain, but you can’t mitigate the lack of turret armour unless you simply not shoot at all (or have a really good position that allows you to shoot and scoot, and are facing only one enemy). And the turret cheeks of the Tiger II, well… you wanna see how many guns at nearby BRs are able to pen them? And therefore neutralise it even before you do get to kill it?

Tiger IIs have an amazing gun, especially at long range, and fantastic gun handling. But everything other than the gun sucks. They’re oversized and slower Panthers, with a strong UFP that will only circumstantially save you, and an armour layout you simply cannot rely on to save you. Even if you’re, in this case, a “heavy”. A Tiger II will never be able to play like an IS-3 can. It’s not overperforming at its BR, and it’s certainly not frontally impenetrable. In fact, given that map rotation features some 70% of small urban maps with engagement distances lower than 500 metres, it barely gets to use its strengths in long-distance duels to begin with.

Tiger IIs are easy to kill. They’re fine at 6.7, especially with the recent BR change. Unlike many heavies across the board, which should go down. Please understand, this isn’t an “American tanks should be easy to kill” thing. Your gripe isn’t with players of other heavy tanks, going through the same struggles, it’s with “the current meta” where armour is effectively meaningless.

[FlipAllTheTables]

@AurenKarach

Given the ammo placement on the Jagdtiger, hitting these weak spots can result in a one-shot. In particular, protection is the lowest at the very corners of the LFP

This is not true anymore as Gaijin has fixed the weak spot that was at the lower edge of the Jagdtiger.

Spoiler

Red line denominates how the armor looked before it was fixed. The extra armor that is to the left of the red line wasn’t there before, and because this plate of armor is volumetric variable thickness, the actual 3D model of the armor determines its thickness, meaning the very lower edge was a weak spot. It no longer is a weak spot however.

@AurenKarach

T-44-100

You bring up the T-44-100 a lot, but this tank is 7.0. They have specifically only talked about 6.7 and below.

@AurenKarach

Besides, this is exactly how heavy vehicles are supposed to work. How many lights and mediums at 4.3 - 5.3 can frontally pen the Jumbo unless they aim for the machine gun port? Exactly.

Panther D and VK 30.02 (M) can penetrate the Jumbo UFP with an above 50% chance when under 200 meters. The 17 pounder found on the multiple Sherman Fireflies and the Avenger does so at a slightly closer range due to slightly inferior penetration. M4A4 SA50, specifically with the PCOT-51P round, will penetrate further due to it’s superior penetration.

Those are all medium tanks, and all from 4.3 to 5.3.

Jumbo penetration screenshots

Sure, these are all at relatively close ranges, but that is better than not being able to penetrate whatsoever.

@AurenKarach

Lower front plate. Machine gun port. Flat turret cheeks (vs flat gun mantlet in the American case).

Machinegun port is a weakspot on the Jagdtiger but not on Tiger IIs, or at the very least it is not nearly as reliable in Tiger IIs, as they have an additional plate of armor behind the MG port that the Jagdtiger lacks.

MG port armor of Jagdtiger and Tiger II (H) from inside

Tiger II (H) first.

Jagdtiger lacks this round plate of armor, but has the MG modeled as armor due to the fact that the MG is functional.

This additional plate of armor means that even against its own round, it ends up exploding when hitting this additional armor plate and stopping a lot of damage, with the shrapnel only killing the MG gunner for certain, and possibly the driver, unless it is shot by a round that deals overpressure damage, in which case death is indeed very likely.

Compared to the Jagdtiger which can’t even stop the American 76 mm, and the round explodes roughly between the crew at the front and the superstructure crew.

The lower plate is only a weakspot on very powerful cannons such as the Russian 122 mm or 100 mm, which on the Russian tech tree at 6.7 or below, not accounting for premium tanks, are only found on tank destroyers or heavy tanks. Either that or cannons that are firing rounds such as APDS.

Even then with the 100 mm, you have to shoot to avoid the transmission otherwise you won’t deal any meaningful damage.

[MiseryIndex556]

I’m not arguing that the T32 and T32E1 are the same as the Tiger II H. I realize the Tiger II H has inferior turret armor. Even with the inferior turret armor, the Tiger II H still is difficult to penetrate or outright immune to a number of vehicle it faces. Somehow tanks like the M4/T26, T20 and Jumbo 76 are expected to fight the Tiger II H without any practical way to defeat the frontal armor but the T32 being in the same situation is unacceptable. Even then, the T32 has frontal weak spots that the average tank can deal with. The hull hatches, mg port, lower plate bulges and shot trap all can be used to kill a T32. You can also not shoot it and find a different angle of attack.

[AurenKarach]

@FlipAllTheTables

Red line denominates how the armor looked before it was fixed. The extra armor that is to the left of the red line wasn’t there before, and because this plate of armor is volumetric variable thickness, the actual 3D model of the armor determines its thickness, meaning the very lower edge was a weak spot. It no longer is a weak spot however.

I think we’re talking about different weak spots. I don’t have access to the game right now, but I checked the spot I’m talking about just yesterday for an unrelated discussion. I’ll get you a screenshot when I can.

@FlipAllTheTables

Those are all medium tanks, and all from 4.3 to 5.3.

I think I was insufficiently clear. I wasn’t implying that the number of medium tanks capable of this was zero: but that it’s low enough that the Jumbo’s armour still matters a lot, without being so few that it turns into seal clubbing. That’s how heavies should be balanced imho. And, excluding all the HEAT-FS stuff, the Jagdtiger’s frontal armour doesn’t look that different to me in terms of its BR balance. Some mediums can pen weak spots, but not all.

@FlipAllTheTables

or at the very least it is not nearly as reliable in Tiger IIs,

What can I say, I’ve been one shot through the MG port quite a few times prior to specifically concealing it with bushes.

@FlipAllTheTables

Even then with the 100 mm, you have to shoot to avoid the transmission otherwise you won’t deal any meaningful damage.

APHE that can pen the lower front plate has a pretty good chance to do meaningful damage, that obviously may not be the case with solid shot; but aiming for crew members (especially in the turret) is a staple of playing with solid shot ammo anyway, and why I was saying that turret armour is more important than hull armour.

Please understand, I’m not arguing that the Tiger II us overtiered or any nonsense like that. I’m saying that if the premise of the argument is “heavies should be actually playable as their intended role” then the Tiger II is a terrible example of a tank supposedly able to do this, because playing it like a heavy will get you killed on first contact with the enemy team. There’s a reason why every guide out there tells you to “play it like a fat medium”. It suffers from the same power creep as many other heavies.

[Zephoid]

We have plenty of examples of heavies that are heavily resistant to downteirs while having a bad gun. Just like most of them, tanks of the same BR are able to pen rather easily. 7.3 tanks have no difficulty with the T32 and 7.7s have a trivial time with the e1. Not only that, the T32 is only a good tank when it can hull down, and many of the city maps don’t give you that option in a lot of the engagement zones. Its easily a 7.0 tank. Not only that, i don’t even think the E1 is a good 7.3. It has almost no significant advantage over the normal T32 (useless APCR rounds, slightly better UFP) and should never have been a split BR over the normal T32.

‘Play it like a fat medium’ is just an explanation of how heavy tanks should be played in all regard. There is no heavy past 4.3 KVs that actually has enough armor to ‘press W’ into enemy vehicles position. Even things like the Jumbo can have their UFP penned by Panthers of the same BR. The tiger 2 has enough UFP armor to bounce nearly any round a 6.7 tank has and its gun shield eats a reliable number of rounds intended for the small pennable locations of the turret. In a full downteir, the US 76mm struggles to pen the tiger 2 frontally anywhere, and tanks are still using that ONE br below the Tiger 2. Its a perfect example of a heavy tank.

[The_Proletariat]

I don’t like ad hominem attacks but you’re kidding right? You’re ok with the tiger 2 at 6.7 with some of the best armor at that battle rating, with hands down the best canons featured on a tank for its position in the tech tree. Mind you, the US gets only really one effective heavy tank the T34 which features very similar protection just in reverse, more being allocated to the turret than the hull. To be honest the other two are not great. First, the t26e1-1 has a way less effective gun, a 5 second longer reload for a shell of nearly identical caliber to the Long 88, is significantly slower than the tiger 2 weighing in at 49.9 tons with a 500hp engine, and armor that sometimes decides to work, but ultimately is inferior to the Tiger 2. The T26E5 is a 6.3 heavy in 6.7 clothing featuring the same exact shorter M3 90mm gun as the M26 with only 7mm more pen than the tiger 1’s 88mm when using APCBC, mind you that gun is at a battle rating of 5.3 and 5.7. It has about the same effective armor as a tiger 2, more than the T26e1-1, but is stuck with the same awful 500hp engine which we all know is terrible. while this tank can engage medium vehicles at that battle rating using APCBC, when fighting other very common and numerous heavy German vehicles at 6.7 such as the Tiger 2H, Tiger 2H 10.5, Ferdinand, Elefant, and Jadgtiger, it MUST rely on APCR to knock out them frontally. this usually results in two situations, taking what feels like a century to knock out the opponent hoping that one of the shells either spalls enough to K.O. more than one crew member at a time or hoping after hitting the ammunition 3 or 4 times the opponent detonates. This gameplay loop can be exceedingly frustrating and makes you question why you unlocked and spaded the tank. In essence what ends up happening is you go on long flanks to shoot opponents in their side relying on your armor to protect you when caught rather than being used for its intended purpose of being a frontal assault tank. Now let’s get to the main focus the T32/E1 and let’s put some things into perspective here. I am going to state things almost everyone already knows, and some things overlooked. First off, the Tiger 2 has with it a 150mm UFP angled at 49 degrees, a LFP of 100mm angled at 50 degrees. This results in effective frontal hull protection of 215mm and 185mm respectively, also mote the crew is additionally protected by the frontal placement of the transmission. The turret face has a whopping 185mm effective armor rating. The Tiger 2 also boats a KwK43 88mm gun featuring an APCBC with 1000m/s muzzle velocity with 237mm of pen at 10m no angle and reloads in 7.5 seconds at its fastest. Also, note the shell has great energy retention requiring the round to be fired almost 1500m before the penetration drops below 200mm at a flat angle. Amazing!

Now the T32/E1 vehicles have similar design, but hull materials differ, and construction angles slightly differ. The T32’s hull is made of cast steel and the T32E1’s hull is made of RHA steel. There is a 4-degree difference in the construction angle of both tanks’ UFP with the T32 hovering at about 54 degrees mind you it has a machine gun ball that flattens out the protection whereas the T32E1 does not have a hull machine gun weak spot. The T32’s LFP is also at a slightly steeper angle as the T32E1 at 59 degrees in the center, but instead of that being uniform across the entirety of the LFP, like the T32E1, on the T32 that angle is reduced to 46 degrees on both the left and right side and unlike its German counterparts doesn’t have the transmission to further protect the crew. The UFP of the T32 is 127mm at 54 degrees resulting in around 195mm of protection. Where the hull machine gun is located the effective protection drops significantly to 130mm of effective protection. The center of the LFP is 95.25mm across but angled at 59 degrees in the center resulting in about 230mm of protection. The left and right side are the same thickness but angled at a steeper 46 degrees resulting in 157mm of protection. The T32E1 has an UFP of 127mm at 58 degrees resulting in 215mm of effective protection, an LFP of 95.25mm angled at 60 degrees resulting in around 231mm of effective protection. both tanks the T32 and T32E1 share the exact same turret featuring a 298.4mm turret face with no angle. Onto firepower Both the T32 and T32E1 have the same exact gun featuring the same APCBC shell with 224mm of penetration at 10m with a muzzle velocity of 975m/s. While the close-range penetration is comparable to the Tiger 2H’s APCBC the energy retention of the shell is significantly less, dropping below 200mm of penetration at no angle just after 500m. Not to mention both versions of the T32 feature a reload time of 14.5 seconds at the fastest.

So, in terms of armor protection when it comes to hull protection the Tiger 2H has higher effective UPF protection to the T32 and is matched by the T32E1. Regarding the LFP of all hulls the Tiger 2H edges out the T32 by having more consistent armor placement along the entirety of the tank and the addition of the transmission protections much of the crew from post penetration damage whereas penetrating the LFP of the T32 or T32E1 is catastrophic. However, the LFP of the T32E1 is superior due to the higher angle and uniformity of construction resulting in more armor than both the Tiger 2H and T32. In terms of the turret protection both T32 models are better than the Tiger 2H design simply due to there being around 104mm more effective protection, even though the T32 presents a shot trap weakness this poses less of a threat than the lower armor of the Tiger 2H’s turret face. in terms of firepower the Tiger 2H obviously has the better gun in every category of penetration, velocity, and a huge advantage in reload and energy retention.

So my conclusion after analyzing all three vehicles is that in terms of armor and firepower the T32 and Tiger 2H are very similar with arguments as to which is better going both ways. I think this justifies the T32 being sent to a reduced battle rating of 7.0 with the Tiger 2H remaining at 6.7. In terms of the T32E1 its tricky. I think this tank also warrants a battle rating reduction to at least 7.3 and possibly 7.0. After playing all these tanks extensively I can say beyond a reasonable doubt that both models of T32 need a reload buff. 14.5 seconds for a 90mm gun is ridiculous. The argument of the reload time because “the shell needs a long reload because it has two-piece ammo” is ridiculous as well. The British Chieftain features a larger 120mm gun which technically has three-piece ammo gets a reload under 10 seconds and the T32E1 is in position to see it in random battles.