The T20 does not deserve a 6.0 BR

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
11

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.

3 Likes
12

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

1 Like
13

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.

5 Likes
14

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.

15

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

1 Like
16

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.

6 Likes
17

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.

2 Likes
18

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

muh bad

19

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

20

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

6 Likes
21

i mean, im going to say it, gaijin hates the entire U.S Tech tree.

1 Like
22

Yeah, a lot of American tanks in general have a BR that are simply way too high, whereas a lot of German vehicles that are equal or even superior have *very *cushy BR’s by comparison.

Let’s look at the T20 at 6.0 first, since this is what the thread is actually about. It’s got a 4.7 gun, so that’s not why it’s at 6.0. Mobility? Nothing special, so it’s not that. Armour? Useless at that BR. So why is it at 6.0? Especially since the Panther is better than it in every single way that matters. Sorry, but the T20 simply isn’t a 6.0 tank. It’s just not.

As I said, a lot of American tanks are too high in BR. There’s also things like the T25, which let’s be real, isn’t worlds better than the Tiger H1, yet it finds itself at a whole 1.0 BR higher. This applies to some extent to the M26 too, and that’s at 6.3 as well, or 6.7(!) in AB, then again, there’s been a lot of weird BR changes in AB that don’t make a lot of sense, like the T-44, which was completely fine at 6.3 before they inexplicably put it to 6.7, and now it’s a lot less useful.

9 Likes
23

Panther doesn’t have a -18kph reverse speed. In fact it’s one of the worst.
It also doesn’t have a low speed stabilizer and 6s reload rate.

While the acceleration is worse than the M4A3 the reverse speed and lower profile is a big benefit.

Again completely wrong. The T25 improves uppon the Tiger H1 in almost any regard.
No cupola weakspot, fast turret traverse, more frontal armor, incredible reverse speed and a powerfull APCR round that is actually usable.

A Tiger can’t compete at 6.3 because it has no means to deal with any +6.3 vehicles on even ground. They all outperform it in any category. The T25 is at least even in some categories, better in others.

1 Like
24

I don’t think M4/T26 excels at sniping, but it is mediocre for sure. One thing to note, that thing has to stay hidden in a hull down position, because it’s hull armor is far from being effective, which means you are almost like a slow light tank.

When I think again, the whole tank screams of mediocrity, nothing in particular stands out.
No stabilization, on-par gun handling, reload and mobility, meh armor, okay-ish shell. I don’t see a single reason why it should be a BR step higher than Panther A, that is just hilarious.

No reason why IS-3 should be at 7.3.
At 7.0 - 8.0 it can and will see many 90/105mm HEAT slingers that will basically negate it’s only advantage, armor.
You will just need to cope with the fact every tank is strong in full downtiers and weak in full uptiers, that’s how the game works.

2 Likes
25

What’s that suppose to mean? What is a light tank in your definition?

26

The Panther has 100mm armor at the gun mantled, the M4/T26 has like 150-200mm.
The 90mm is also much more deadly than the Panthers 75mm.
Mobility is practically the same.
The Panther excels in long range fighting due to the strong hull armor, the M4/T26 when it’s hull down.
Other than that the 90mm is better because of it’s high post-pen damage, making it more likely to take out a vehicle in one shot.

So the M4/T26 is the better vehicle.

2 Likes
27

How many medium tanks at 4.3 (not even 3.7, but 4.3) can frontally bounce a Dicker Max round?

I know this question sounds like a non sequitur, but it isn’t. Most medium tanks are balanced in a way that makes them frontally vulnerable to many threats at their BRs, and especially to derp-gun tank destroyers.

The T-44 gets a rare reprieve by the standards of medium tanks, at least when it comes to conventional, war-time ammunition. Its upper front plate is strong enough to bounce Jagdtiger APHE rounds, unless it is completely unangled. That is a lot of frontal protection for a medium tank. You already think the Panthers are under-BR’d, so let me ask you this: what BR would you put them at, if their upper front plates were immune to the IS-2 or Su-100? Because that would be the nearest equivalent. I doubt you’d be happy leaving them at 6.3 in that circumstance…

The T-44’s gun does begin to struggle at that BR. However, it must be noted that in relation to its extraordinary frontal protection, it retains incredible mobility. That’s two out of three criteria where it’s a great tank. If the gun was also great, it would be almost unstoppable.

The survivability is enhanced by the fact that, while the LFP is a pretty reliable one hit kill, the turret weakspots are often the subject of volumetric shenanigans. The end result is that the T-44 is bad at killing stuff frontally, but is also not trivial to kill frontally, and it has the tools to flank competently, which is what it excels at.

It’s fine at 6.7.

As for Panthers, I think the A is undertiered, the G is fine where it is, and the F is overtiered. Panther A should definitely be higher than it is.

But, while good, Panthers are also not as good as people who play against them, make them sound.

Exactly. Panthers excel at getting quickly to a good firing position and then utilising distance, but this is rarely an option in WT. Most frequent ways to die in a Panther are: a bomb you lack the mobility to dodge (you have a much easier time of surviving CAS in Tigers), and the constant track-barrel torture that comes with facing tanks with a STAB.

Who gets the first shot and lands it, usually dictates the engagement. And this is one area where the Panthers’ weaknesses are emphasised.

Really, in battlefield role terms, Panthers are mobile tank destroyers, and Tiger Is are the true mediums of the German tree at those BRs.

The reason why the A is undertiered (imho) is precisely that its amazing turret rotation and great mobility minimise those weaknesses.

1 Like
28

But the Panther A is pretty much identical to the Panther G, in case you haven’t noticed that it’s engined was nerfed to the the same 600 HP like the G and F. Turret rotation speed is now identical.

1 Like
29

Damn. You can tell I’ve only played 5.7 occasionally in the last few months (and that I almost never bother with the F, so lacked the metric of comparison).

Even with the engine governor being uniform for all three, I would still rather take the A and G over the F at 6.0 any day, to be honest. I really dislike the F.

30

I really like the F :)
But maybe more for historical reasons than actual performance.