christ no, whats next? german mains wanting the panzer 4s to go to reserve?
1 Like
What does that have to do with you advocating for more open compression
Hey man, you might want to look into the marder III H, 5 second reload with an above average german 75mil pen.
I’d say a 3.3 or even 3.7
how is that compression? the etendard is simply overtiered and it going to 8.7 changes nothing, you have way better aircrafts at lower BRs with more Aim-9Bs, what are you actually on about
I mean, there are Panzer IVs in rank I
I’ll add it to the list.
Yeah so move up the VK 30.02 M…
Though the VK also needs to be corrected to the historical 80mm front plate it had.
the long 75mm ones
This ones a little iffy. I agree with the premise. I don’t want to see the Pz.IV J get stuck playing second fiddle to the Pz.IV H. But it’s hard for me to say if the reduced turret traverse is enough to completely offset having the Pz.IV H’s armor and gun a BR step lower.
One possibility is potentially to nerf the Pz.IV J’s turret traverse even further so that it can stay at its BR and practically become a Germany M10 that can’t be overpressured. Historically, you’re looking at about 3~4°/s, though we could be generous for gameplay purpose and give it a bit more, maybe 6~8°/s.
It would be a harsh nerf, but at least then you have the choice to not use it, and just go with the Ausf.G at the same BR.
2 Likes
The J is arguably one of the worst. The lack of power turret rotation is crippling.
Should never have been rated same BR as H. It’s a pure downgrade.
2 Likes
Isn’t this one of those tanks that has conflicting sources?
I’ve seen figures for what we have now and this exact article.
1 Like
Their armour differences make little difference as their opponents will pen 90% of the time anyway.
The 57 post pen is lower. But it’s still certainly good enough to one shot 90% of the time, and the follow up shot comes before the opponent has had enough time to react anyways.
The stab and depression certainly are in favour of the Sherman, but the mobility and smaller size of the T-34 makes it much more easy to flank. So no, I don’t think its advantages are enough to justify a difference in BR.
We can agree to disagree on this one. :)
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Both premium Su-30’s in the Russian and Chinese TT’s need to go up, to place it at the same level as the Kfir C.10 when it has 3x the amount of missiles that have better performance is illogical. I own both of these vehicles, I get that they are payed products but it’s Pay-to-Win given the matchmaker it gets put in most of the time. Please fix this.
3 Likes
Devs, please consider a BR reduction for the Tornado IDS WTD61.
At the current level of changes, the other tornado variants that were reduced in BR, have higher capabilities than it, especially in air to ground, on the same 11.3 BR in Realistic.
Either give the WTD61 the same guided ordnance as the other Tornadoes at the same BR, given that this test unit, and this aircraft was responsible for testing the ordnance and the upgrades that would become the ASSTA1 program, or make it at a lower BR given the fact that it is very limited in ordnance.
1 Like
IS-1
5.7 → 5.3
When driven in reverse the armor isn’t much better than the KV-85 and it can’t do anything to the 6.7 tanks. The cupola also prevents it from being too strong and serves as a reliable weakspot in downtiers.
3 Likes
Tiger H1
5.7 → 5.3
The tech tree version doesn’t have the extra armor of the pack variants and it’s overall a really mid tank. The cupola is massive and easy to hit like the one on the IS-1.
2 Likes
IS-2
6.3 → 6.0
This tanks has nothing going for it and should have never moved up
3 Likes
Ig there could be conflicting values when it comes to manual traverse. I’d have to look for some more books covering it.
Rome wasn’t built in a day