The T20 does not deserve a 6.0 BR

The fact that this tank has a chance to meet IS-3s is ridiculous and it doesnt even get the dubiously useful APCR. Hell, taking a look at what other tanks are at 6.0 makes it even more mind boggling, somehow its on the same BR as the Centurian mk.1 and the Jagdpanther! Both of which at least have the firepower to compete in an uptier.

This is literally a flat sherman with a usable reverse gear and needs to be downtiered to 5.7 or even 5.3. Otherwise this the most singlemost worthless premium a player can buy.


The T20 is faster in reverse than the M4A3 but feels more sluggish overall. I honestly don’t play it much anymore.


I’ve been trying a 6.0 lineup with the T20 and M4/T26, with the M36s and M18 to fill the gaps.

Probably the most miserable experience i’ve ever played in Warthunder. The T20 brings nothing to the battlefield when everything else around you is more armored, faster and greater firepower from tanks a full BR below it.


Because the T20 is modeled as if it were a normal 3 forward, 1 reverse gear transmission when in real life it had a torque converter.

Vehicles with torque converters get around double the amount of gears in WarThunder so the T20 should actually have 6 forward, 2 reverse gears in-game (you can see this with the M18 and M26 which, from what I know, use an improved model of the transmission that the T20 uses).


It’s also more sneaky :)

You mean it’s not an overpowered premium and therefore not worth it?

The Jumbo is 6.3 and it’s still competetive. The lower profile and excelent reverse speed combined with the stabilized 76mm make it excellent for brawling, flanking and ambushing.

It’s just not good for sniping but for that you have the M4/T26.

I’m pretty sure that a T20 has a better chance to knock out a IS-3 than a Tiger II, simply because the T20 has the clear advantage in disabling the IS-3 first. With a .50cal and fast firing 76mm the IS-3 has no tracks and barrel in no time.

The IS-3 strenght doesn’t lie at close range fighting, while the T20s does.

1 Like

Other than reverse, the T20 is inferior to the M4A3. Putting it back at 5.3 is more than reasonable.


And how do you explain that it went from 5.0 to 6.0?

It’s certainly better. The reverse speed makes all the difference.

1 Like

Most US 76mm gun users’ BR are too high, considering we have T1E1 in 5.0, T20 should be lower in in fact, remember T25 is still in 6.3


It felt more mobile. That was the justification. Now it’s less mobile.

Yeah i guess the Jumbo 76 and T20 similar enough in that they’re overtiered to the point where any strengths they have is worthless and completely reliant on the enemy team being extra stupid thay day.

War Thunder 90mm? Good for sniping? What game are you playing? Any tank that the 76 cant pen neither can the 90 both guns are terrible for sniping.

I’m sure the IS-3 player will have a tough time point clicking literally anywhere on the T20.

A shoddy justification as well. But yeah, now that reason is no longer relevant.

1 Like

I agree, it is a joke how a medium tank with a 150 mm pen gun is at 6.0

1 Like

The tank is objectively bad at 6.0, and anyone who says it isn’t probably doesn’t play the US and says that the Jumbo 76 and Pershing are equal to Tiger 2 P and that T26E5 is equal to Tiger 2 H.

It should be downtiered to 5.7, with fixed APCR (which was CORRECT BEFORE) and fixed transmission so it isn’t more sluggish than the M4A3 76. It should also get supercharged M62.
The M4A3 76 should also get supercharged M62 and go to 5.3.


If the T20 got those improvements to armament and mobility there would be no need at all for it to go to 5.7. Supercharged M62 would put M62 at a muzzle velocity of 2820 ft/s or 859.536 m/s which would give it 168 mm of point blank penetration which is higher than even the 85 mm BR-367 APCBC.

If the M4A3 got supercharged M62 it should not go to 5.3 at all. It’s already fine at 5.7 as of right now.

Edit: That’s not to mention that the M4A2 already sits at 5.3. What would happen to it? Does it go to 5.0? But then the M4A3 would be substantially superior to the M4A2 (significantly better mobility and significantly better armament) yet it would only be a 0.3 jump higher.

You can’t honestly be saying the M4/26 is good for sniping.

1 Like

To be fair, a supercharged 76 wouldnt be that much of game changer considering we have the Panther A with 192mm of penetration at 5.7. Not to mention that the penetration improvement wont actually increase the list of tanks it can penetrate reliably.


It’s good for sniping because you have a M26 turret at 6.0, making it perfect for staying at range and hull down.

And how are they going to do that? With 9°/s turret traverse on a vehicle with 10hp/t?
The only time an IS-3 is going to shoot at an T20 first, is by having someone not paying attention, and that would be the case with every vehicle.
Suprise suprise, the 1.0 BR higher vehicle can shoot the other anywhere. But is the IS-3 going to capture a cap at the start of the match?
Is it going to destroy a light vehicle which might have HEAT or APDS before it gets shot first?

The game is not some child putting two tanks in an open field arena and says: Ok now fight each other.

Penetration has literally zero relevance comparing vehicles, without considering any of the other factors.
That’s like saying this plane has 20mm cannons, that’s why it’s better than this plane which only has 7.7mm MGs.

Even if veicle (1) beats vehicle (2) anytime, it doesn’t mean much when vehicle (2) is better at beating vehicle (3), (4), (5), (6)… etc.

I take a Panther with stabilized 76mm with 6s reload any day over having 190mm of penetration.
The reason is simply, the penetration might make it easier to penetrate a vehicle compared to having less penetration but it’s more than off-set by the increase in firepower of the faster reload and time it takes to put the gun on target.
If I want 190mm penetration with good frontal armor, I play the Jadgpanzer IV/70.

Of course more penetration is an advantage since it makes enemy vehicles more vulnerable.
If a vehicle is angled the necessary armor penentration might be more than 150mm, in which case a super charged 76mm would be able to take the vehicle out.
But that doesn’t mean that vehicle X is better because it has more penetration than vehicle Y.

A Panther has very good frontal armor and high penetration, making it most effective at range, like a TD. If it wasn’t for the turret and mobility the Jadgpanzer IV/70 would be just as effective, while at range they’re practically equal.
When you use the Panther up close, capturing points, trying to flank, brawling, its advantages become less relavent because you don’t need the best frontal armor when you can get shot anytime in the sides, nor the highest penetration, since at close range any medium has enough pen to take out nearly any vehicle.

Avoiding getting shot, while being able to shoot at other vehicles always beats being shot and not being able to shoot.


oh man, I thought this was another R-3-T20 post complaining about how its BR is too high lmao.

muh bad

The problem is not the T20 in 6.0 is the IS-3 still in 7.0 when should be moved to 7.3.

It just seems like German Vehicles around this middle BR range have the most cushy battle ratings imaginable, making them as competitive as possible yet some people manage to justify a basic American medium tank with a 4.7 gun and mediocre armor as a 6.0, which yes, I think will struggle to penetrate even the side of an IS-3