The M26 Pershing belongs at 6.3 (Ground RB)

[CJZEPP]

Would you like to see the M26 Pershing moved to BR 6.3

• Yes
• No

While the M26 Pershing is a fine tank, all of the M26 variants are superior and yet share the same BR of 6.7. Due to its lackluster mobility, average armor, and penetration akin to that of the 8.8 cm KwK 36 when using conventional kinetic rounds (which is all it gets access to), it is essentially on par or slightly better than the Tiger E, which sits at BR 6.0.

Meanwhile, the T26E5, or the “Jumbo Pershing” which shares the same gun but has drastically better armor protection also sits at 6.7. Imagine if that were the case for the M4A2 (75) (BR 4.0) and the M4A3E2 (75) Jumbo (BR 5.7). Can you imagine if these tanks were both 5.7 (RB, SB)? That would be unfathomable, and yet we basically have the same case with the M26 and T26E5.

Going even further we have the T26E1-1, aka the “Super Pershing”. This vehicle is also up-armored, but with applique plates. It also has a more powerful gun. Yet, it sits at 6.7 like the standard M26. Again, this is as if the M4A2 (75) (BR 4.0) was now sitting at the same BR as the M4A3E2 (76) W (BR 6.3)!

Up-armored and and up-gunned versions of tanks should almost never share a BR with the standard tank. The additional armor and firepower of the T26E5 and T26E1-1 provide significant benefits over the standard M26. I am not calling for them to go up in battle rating. They perform competitively where they are. I am calling into question the reasoning for keeping the standard M26 at 6.7 when there are clearly better options based off of its chassis at the exact same BR.

Additionally, if you go up just 0.3 in BR, you can use the M46, which is literally just a much faster M26 that has access to potent HEAT-FS rounds. As a side note: the Italian M26A1 that is equipped with the modernized M3A1 cannon should stay at 6.7, but only if it is given access to the M348 HEAT-FS shell. This would make the vehicle truly unique and give players a reason to use it in the Italian tree.

TL;DR: The M26 is comparable to the Tiger I and therefore should be reduced in BR. More importantly, there are better M26 variants at 6.7 in the US tech tree such as the T26E5 and T26E1-1 that give little incentive to use the standard M26. The M26A1 in the Italian tree should stay at 6.7 and be given access to M348 HEAT-FS.

[HondaCivici]

The 6.7 BR bracket is heavily compressed

[CJZEPP]

Aint that the truth. 6.7 - 7.7 needs to be much more spread out

[T3MPEST]

would love to face the Pershing in downtiers of 5.3… sounds really “swell” /s, considering the Pershing was the answer to the tiger 2 they should be the same BR, the later developments past them like the super Pershing should be 7.0 just like the up-gunned Tiger 2 105 or the Panther II are respectively at 7.0…

the Tiger 105 gains a whopping 14mm of more pen in exchange for an extremely longer reload than the 88mm and a higher Battlerating.

meanwhile the Super pershing gains additional armor and 39mm more of pen for the same reload and the same BR

[QuadOpossum4122]

@T3MPEST

considering the Pershing was the answer to the tiger 2 they should be the same BR,

Ah yes, the Pershing was the answer to a tank the designers didn’t know existed.

[CleanupOnIL-2]

truly allied scientists were omnipotent

[CJZEPP]

The Pershing is slower than the Tiger II, the Super Pershing is even less mobile thanks to the added weight. The Super Pershing also has notable weak points such as below the applique turret “flaps”, the hatches on the hull, the MG port, the exposed elevation drive etc.

The Panther G (and other variants) have more penetration and comparable frontal armor and are also way more mobile, and yet they sit at BR 6.0 or lower. Sure they have weaker side armor but most things that kill a Panther from the side will also kill a Pershing… not to mention the Pershing also has notable weak points just like any other tank in the game. I see literally zero issues with 5.3 vehicles fighting the regular M26 Pershing in a down-tier.

Take a look at the Panther D firing APHE vs the M26 at 500 m:

PT-76B firing HEAT-FS vs M26 at 500 m:

ISU-122 firing APHE vs M26 at 500 m:

ARL-44 firing AP vs M26 at 500 m:

Are you seeing a pattern?

All of the above vehicles are 5.3 and can penetrate the M26 frontally with little issue at 500 m. These same vehicles struggle against Tiger II variants and even Panthers.

[kcns]

Pershing is fine where it is
Super Pershing is uparmored at the cost of way worse mobility. And upgunned at the cost of a much longer reload

And let’s be real t26e5 could easily goto 7.0 and be fine. Only reason it’s still 6.7 is because idiot US players hold W and surprise pikachu face die 1min after spawn

Still better than similar tanks like t44

[MR_BOOMBASTICc]

@T3MPEST

considering the Pershing was the answer to the tiger 2 they should be the same BR

it was the answer to the Tiger 1 and panther tanks. The t29 series was the answer
for the tiger 2

[MR_BOOMBASTICc]

well t44 has better armor tho

[kcns]

T44 has slightly better effective hull armor at the cost of worse effective turret armor. and far worse survivability since any penetrating hits to turret kills the crew

t44 also has worse round, worse gun depression, worse gun handling etc

[kcns]

lmao are u trolling? Pershing has much better mobility especially in reverse. Pershing turret is more trolly and bounces way more rounds than any panther. Pershing hull armor is better. Especially sides being 50% thicker helps a lot to bounce rounds coming at an angle that would otherwise overmatch panther side armor. M82 has way better postpen (5x explosive mass btw)

Almost like the Pershing is better than the tank it was designed to counter huh. If you don’t hold W and charge facefirst into everything like the average room temperature IQ US main pershing is amazing. And it’s not even the best 6.7 on US tbh

[CJZEPP]

It is far from amazing. It is average when compared to many other 6.7 vehicles. The T-44 is a similar case. You just said it yourself: there are better 6.7 US tanks. It is not a question of “this tank has a lot of good attributes but I am saying it is bad”, it is more that there are much more powerful tanks both in the US lineup and in other tech trees. Really more of a BR compression issue.

[kcns]

It is pretty damn good though. The better ones like t26e5 absolutely should go up rather than the m26 going down

[CJZEPP]

Maybe that is the route to go. Major BR decompression. Choose which 6.7 vehicles stay and choose which need to go up to 7.0 - 7.3. Of course, that would require a shift of everything above 6.7 as well, which is a big task. They’re already moving French 6.7 vehicles like the AMX M4 up to 7.0 soon.

[山_田_凉]

Do the same analysis. But uncheck "Consider vertical camera angle. You are holding the camera too high.

As someone who has used the M26, I find it to actually be good for its BR.

[CJZEPP]

Gotcha. Let me try again. I agree that it isn’t terrible for the BR, but it is simply outclassed.

[Caernarvon02]

the reality is that 6.7-8.7 needs severe decompression by moving everything else up significantly.

Moving the pershing to Tiger 1 BR areas is an insane take

[KillaKiwi]

Considering the 76mm Jumbo is 6.3 and the T26E5 has a more powerfull gun and much better armor, it sure seems logical.

It’s practically a mini T32. Just slower.

[Magikッ]

The T-64 was built as an answer to the Leopard 1 and M60. Should the T-64 be 8.0 then?