The List of OP 1.0 vehicles

1.0 is the lowest BR and not all 1.0 vehicles are equal.
In fact there are quite a number of vehicles that are far better than others.

While new players might not find them particular more effective, experienced players can easily abuse them.

Just for fun I’m gonna list a bunch of vehicles that are far too effective to be 1.0 vehicles.

But to understand how good they are, we first need to see what makes a regular 1.0 vehicle 1.0.
If some vehicles could be even lower than 1.0, here’s a list of classic 1.0 performance vehicle first.

Average 1.0 vehicles

T-26 (Light tank - mod. 1938)

  • High penetration and damage with APHE
  • Armor only protects against rifle caliber LMGs (.50cal vulnerability)
  • Poor mobility (9.29hp/t) and decent turret traverse (16°/s)
  • Only three crews (low survivability)

→ The T-26 can kill vehicles when it gets it’s gun on target but is also easily killed and struggles to get into a good position

T-60 (Light tank - 1941)

  • 20mm auto-cannon (Low penetration, high damage against vulnerable targets)
  • Frontal armor protects against weak AT guns
  • Only two crews (low survivability)
  • Decent mobility (12hp/t) and decent turret traverse (15°/s)

→ The T-60 can struggle to kill certain vehicles but has very good firepower against a large number of Rank 1 vehicles and can also resist getting killed thanks to it’s decent frontal armor.

L6/40(Light tank - 1940)

  • Good 20mm auto-cannon
  • Adequate armor (can resist .50cals and weak AT guns)
  • Only 2 crews (low survivability)
  • Poor mobility (10hp/t) but quick turret traverse (24°/s)

→ Similiar to T-60 with a bit more penetration for a lower clip size. Hull takes a while to stabilize after stopping, making it difficult to fire immediatly.

M2A2 (Light tank - 1935)

  • Single .50cal with 200 rds per belt (extremely deadly against light armored vehicles)
  • Armor protects only against rifle caliber LMG
  • 4 crews means chance to survive a hit is pretty decent
  • Insane speed and mobility (30hp/t) but limited traverse angle of .50cal AT MG.

→ The M2A2 has even more firepower than the T-60. While it has less armor it makes up for it by having crazy mobility, even for Rank 1 light vehicles. Out of the four it has the potential to cause the most damage among enemy teams.

So an average 1.0 tank has relatively little armor and/or survivabiltiy and firepower that can be good but also lacking in some situations while generally being a flawed design.

Now let’s look at some 1.0 vehicles which are certainly too strong for 1.0, matching the performance of 1.3 and 1.7 vehicles.

Overperforming 1.0 vehicles

M2A4 (Light tank - 1940)

  • High penetrating gun with low speed stabilizer,
    good traverse speed (20.5°/s) and depression angle (-10°)
  • Armor that is generally .50cal proof/resistant and can protecta against AT guns.
    Very well protected turret front.
  • 4 crews means pretty high surviviability for Rank 1
  • Generally very good mobility

→ The M2A4 excels in practically every category.

M8 LAC (Armored Car - 1943)

  • Insane firepower combination of 37mm AT gun (20°/s travers) and .50cal
  • Suprisingly strong armor. Can resist 20mm APCR from the front
  • 4 crews means pretty good surviviability. However open topped.
  • Good mobility and one of the better Rank 1 reverse gears

→ Insanely high firepower that can even target aircraft with almost no downside. Appart from the armor it’s practically a better M8 HMC.

BT-5 (Light tank - 1933)
→ Not super OP but beats the T-26 in mobility by a large margin.

A13 Mk I Cruiser (Cruiser tank - 1939)

  • Very good firepower and penetration with 2pdr. Insane traverse (36°/s) and depression angles (-15°)
  • Armor protects only against LMG bullets
  • 4 crews gives ok survivability
  • Very good mobility

→ The Cruiser Mk I is weakly armored but has insanely good firepower + mobility. It even has a smoke launcher and a low speed stabilizer. A better BT-5 in almost every way.

AB 41 (Armored Car - 1939)
→ In general a better L6/40. While being very weakly armored it has much better mobility (very good revese) and much better stability for the gun. 4 crews also give it some extra survivability.

Strv m/39 (Light tank - 1940)

  • Good firepower with Rank 1 APDS and 37mm APHE. Good gun depression (-14°)
  • Insane good turret armor (50mm!!)
  • 3 crews means not the best survivability
  • Good mobility

→ Beats other 1.0 tanks by a large margin with pretty good armor and firepower for a mobile light tank

All the mentioned vehicles should have a BR of at least 1.3 based on the performance of other 1.3 or 1.7 vehicles in comparison.

I’m suggesting the following:

M2A4 → 1.3 (somewhat weaker armored M3 Stuart, with worse stabilizer)
M8 LAC → 1.7 (It’s like a M13 MGMC that trades a .50cal for a 37mm AT gun)
BT-5 → 1.3
A13 Mk 1 → 1.7 (with other variants to follow)
AB 41 → 1.3
Strv m/39 → 1.7 (only somewhat weaker armored than Strv m/40L at 2.0)


Personally I think the M2A2 is pretty much on par with the BT-5.
It can really deal a lot of damage in the right situation with the .50cal and certainly beats the T-26 simply because the large number of weakly armored Rank 1 vehicles.

Isnt variety a good thing?

I personally enjoy fighting vehicles that are not identical to my vehicle.

Why not just accept all vehicles have strengths and weaknesses which make the vehicle what is?

Some vehicles are straight up shit, moving other vehicles up because they are not as shit as another vehicles isnt a good idea imo.

I mean you pick a vehicle from any br and argue that other vehicles do things better.

Why choose m2a2? because it is a good vehicle. Take away its slightly worse opponents then it makes the m2a2 not so good.

Why choose a particular heavy tank over mediums? because it is a good vehicle and it has armour.
Take away its ability to fight other vehicles of lower capability, it is no longer good. it no longer can rely on armour. making it redundant.

t26 is not a good tank, and the competition it comes up against should be better than it - because it is a shit tank, like it is supposed to be.

It is what gives us a reason to choose certain vehicles over others when making your lineup

Thats my 2 cents.


It is!

And none of these vehicles are particularly well armoured, it most of the time it is who shoots first gets the kill.

What have variety have to do with the efficency of vehicles? :)

Again, this has nothing to do with changing BRs of vehicle that are better than others.

If a 1.0 vehicle is as good as 1.3/1.7/2.0 vehicle, it should have the appropriated BR.
This has nothing to do with that some vehicles are inherently worse than others.

That’s like your favourite argument: “Some vehicle are better than others, so what?”

Which is generally not true. Vehicles have strenghts and weaknesses, it’s the sum that results in how good the vehicle is, independant if another vehicle is better or worse in other aspects.

Good question. I personally consider the M2A2 to be very good for 1.0.
Probably the best out of the the ones I mentioned.

But again you’re argument makes no sense.
It’s already 1.0. Worse tanks can’t get lower than that. If better vehicles move up, it doesn’t change the number of worse vehicles it’s going to see.

Only when the M2A2 moves up as well, will it see less worse vehicle (or simply weakly armored ones) and instead better (or just better armored) ones.

And moving up the M2A2 isn’t really out of the realm of possibilities.
The .50cal SPAA all went from 1.3 (maybe 1.0) to now 1.7, because they were so capable in destroying vehicles at their own BR.

You bring that up in every comment when someone wants to change any BR of vehicles.
Yet BR change all the time, based on vehicles efficency.

All the vehicles I mentioned don’t rely on armor but that doesn’t mean their armor doesn’t give them an advantage in some instances.
Instead they rely on being better then the majority of others.
Or how is it fair that one vehicle beats 10 others in practically every category?

There are many bad vehicles at 1.0 and there are many much better tanks that have no right to be 1.0 when they are not bad.

There is no choice to make when you can either play a bad vehicle or a vehicle that is clearly better.

The BT-5 does everything the T-26 does but better.
The M8 LAC can do much more thant he M2A2 can.
The Strv m/39 can do everything the other Swedish 1.0 tanks can but has actually armor that resists guns.

This is not a case where you choose a SU-5-1 over a T-26, or a Sd. Kfz. 221 over a Pz. 35(t) based on what you think is going to suit the situation better.

It’s simply chosing between a vehicles that can do something and another that can do the same but better.

1 Like

Since when do vehicles need armor to be effective?

Always has been

Good joke.

Remind me again why the M18 is going to 6.0?

French and JP low tier bouta get negative br for how bad they perform compare to these.


All nation has tanks that are 1.0 worthy and not the best but French and Japanese tanks are still ok.
Just a few 1.0/1.3 vehicles that are just much better.

I even like to play with those “removed” French and Japanese 1.0 vehicle from time to time but the mentioned tanks are just way out of their league.

At 1.0 we have:

  • Bad
  • Ok
  • Good
  • Very good

Vehicles. But most good vehicles could easily go to 1.3 or higher and the very good ones have just no right to be that good.

If vehicles that are too good get moved up, bad vehicles automatically become less bad.

I don’t believe any can actually have fun with the h35 and fcm, the gun are just so bad i got trauma from using it. But for others like H39 and AMD.35 i genuinely have fun and can do pretty well. Low tier JP and France (maybe Italy too) suffer from the facts that they have pretty mediocre vehicles that are not really fun for new players.

Because it has good mobility. Give it T-44 levels of armour it will get moved to 6.7

Sd.Kfz.251/9 at 1.3 🤤

Making lob shots with this thing on Kuban just makes me drool on my keyboard with the low velocity short 75, and people not knowing how they got hit, just puts a smile on my face.

1 Like

You clearly have no clue about the performance of vehicles.

A M18 with T-44 armor would straight up be 7.3/7.7

You do realize that a M18 wtih T-44 of armor is just simply a better T-44?
Or are you next going to tell me it’s the same because the T-44 carries a 85mm gun?

How about you make an actual argument about any tank.

An A13 Mk I doesn’t need armor to kill other vehicles, it already has a gun that can penetrate 90% of low tier vehicles while also having the ability to shoot first in 90% of the cases.

Therefore armor is not a relevant factor and is a far better than 90% of 1.0 vehicles.

As a low- to mid-tier seal clubber, I find myself unable to agree with this comment. While both the BT-5 and the M2A2 have incredible mobility, the M2A2 cannot match the BT-5’s firepower. The BT-5 has incredible one-shot capabilities, and the M2A2 simply struggles to do so. Sure, most tier 1 vehicles have weak armor, but how reliable is the 0.5 cal at dealing damage? Even at point blank range, that thing struggles to penetrate most tanks from the front.

My favorites (and I personally believe overpowered as well) 1.0 vehicles are the Strv m/39 and the M8 LAC. Both tanks have extremely high mobility and excellent firepower. Panzer IIs were on my list until the HVAP ammunition belt was drastically nerfed.

Like what? every tank can be able to kill every tank, most require different playstyles excel in. Except for the former french reserve vehicles.

The 85 has way more damage and angle pen, the 85 is better compared to the 76.

Those where the good days.

The T-26 is the worst vehicle in the goddamn game

That’s why their memes.

You clearly never heard of the FCM. Unlike the T-26 the FCM has only APCR and cannot pen jack.