Well I’ve heard that it the short 90mm is able to frontally pen panthers and I’m pretty sure it’s unable to do that in game. However as some have suggested, it’s probably because of the shell formula gaijin uses. If it gets a buff, it needs to be historically accurate. If it’s not, don’t buff it.
In my opinion, the short 90mm with only aphe kinda sucks with the exception of the T26E5 but it’s mainly because of it’s BR placement. The tanks with heatfs do quite well.
Short 90 mm doesn’t need faster reload time (altough they should make it match the Tiger 1’s 9.6 seconds instead of being arbitrarily lower at 9.7s), they need to get its AP and APCR fixed.
The long 90 mm could definitely use a slightly shorter reload time, at least on the Super Pershing which is in no way an equivalent to the Tiger 2 H. And T50 APHE should be added to long 90 mm to achieve the same pen as German 88 mm.
You mean the ones that have the highest pen for their BRs with a competitive reload.
@magikvfx
M26 is correctly BR’d, the only way it moves down is if APCR is removed which would be kind of cringe to be honest, but I have T26E5 for APCR fun.
“But APCR doesn’t spall!”
EXACTLY! Use them as an opportunity to train for higher BR vehicles that use APDS and APFSDS.
You will never have a better APCR round to train with.
those arnt bad at all, btw you forgot the m56 . once you get heatfs on any of those tanks (if they get it I know the m56, m48, m47, and the second t26 gets it)
Is the M26 equal to an IS-2 (1944)? Yes. Is it equal to a Tiger II P? Maybeish. Is it equal to a Tiger II H? No. I would only agree with this if the T26E5 and Tiger II H go up to 7.0.
True. Short 90 though still needs a slight buff on the pattons, as they are quite useless to grind.
The M47 is decent. But it suffers from a turret ball issue. The M48 is what I take issue with, as there are too many weakspots and the reverse is abysmal.
APCR is not modeled the same way as APDS or APFSDS. APFSDS and APDS have more spall compared to APCR and especially angled penetration. The main thing I take issue with is the later tier 90mm guns, like on the M47, M48, T32, T32E1. At these tiers there are many other tanks that do better and often reload faster. Back to APCR, it is not good to train for APDS or APFSDS whatsoever. APCR is utterly useless with the shell formula Gaijin uses, as again, it sucks with angled penetration. APDS and APFSDS are usually one shot trips, as APDS can penetrate angled armor, while not having much spall, can make up by hitting ammo or crew. It’s kind of like HEATFS. But again, APDS is not present on the pattons and the HEATFS is usually very very inconsistent, sometimes being bad even. APHE is the only thing that consistently gives me one shots but the reload makes it a kicker. APFSDS has a lot more spall, and at top tier, it goes back to low tier basically with multiple shots needed to kill a tank unless you shoot a weakspot. In Top tier, you will likely learn the vehicle weakspots and might even already know them from test drives, or videos.
As I said, you get good with APCR and you become far better with APDS and APFSDS.
It’s the perfect training round.
APCR is the only round I use with T26E5.
Also Tiger 2H has no consistent front weakspots without APCR.
Let’s not forget Maus and IS-4M.
APCR handling is nowhere close to APFSDS or APDS. Tiger 2H turret face is consistent if you have HE filler, you just blitz the whole crew. Otherwise it’s a full turret kill which is still a win. Maus and IS-4M are invulnerable to APCR. I don’t know where you get this from, but as I said, APCR is nowhere close to APFSDS/APDS. It can not penetrate anything that is angled, and it has 0 spall compared to APFSDS or APDS.
lol LMAO even.
I 1v1’d an IS-4M on Iberian Castle using my T26E5, they couldn’t pen me, but I could pen them with my APCR that I exclusively use with the tank.
They were gone, I survived.
Maus has less consistent armor for APCR because it only has more than 280mm of armor on the hull front.
I’ve never relied on spalling and never will.
That and 90mm APHE can’t pen a Tiger 2’s turret front but APCR can.
APCR is the definition of consistency,. which is the entire point of using it to train.
Becoming reliant on HE filler means you’ll be worse at higher BRs.
There’s a difference between “couldn’t pen” and “didn’t know how to pen”.
I’ve killed a T26E5 with the T-34-85 frontally (after they “fixed” the lower glacis armor model). It’s not difficult if you know weakspots and have the time to aim. Clearly that IS-4M didn’t.
Good luck depressing the gun that much, then of course that close of range adds more angle to the lower armor.
That is at most 0.5 second before your own barrel is shot out, then memed on in 1 - 2 shots assuming you even have a round loaded.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
He could’ve been less elevated, you don’t know. The T26E5 has a bunch of weakspots, primarily the driver hatches when shooting from the semi-sides, and the turret ball.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
@thick_deez_nuts
APCR is as reliable as the person behind it, cause it doesn’t spall which means it’s exclusively as reliable as YOU.
APCR will tell you how good you are at aiming or how bad, and it will do it brutally.
I’ve memorized every ammo position of every tank in War Thunder.
I’ve memorized every gunner position of every tank in War Thunder.
Doing all of that was easier for long-term consistency than relying on post-pen damage and getting upset at anything other than my own skill at aiming. Cause while screwing up a PENNING APHE shot is partially my fault, screwing up an APCR, APDS, or APFSDS shot is 100% my fault.
And to gaslight those that push for aiming training… lol
You do realize that they make software tools to get better at aiming in shooters in general? Go ahead and gaslight them next too.
Then you copy my statement that APCR is vastly inferior to APDS and APFSDS.
Good to know you’ve never played higher BRs so I can dismiss your provocations.
I’ve personally completed all tech trees in War Thunder for air, and 6 for ground with the other 4 above 7.7.
Sure APCR is as reliable as the person using it. But not everyone is a wizard who can hit every shot. Are you claiming to be one? And at higher tiers, commanders have main gun override, so just killing the gunner isn’t enough and with poopy spalling, it simply isn’t enough. And cool. You know every position. Not everyone would go and do it. Not everyone wants to play super competitively. Long term consistency can be dismissed as you aren’t just going to magically remember exactly where every weakspot is whenever you can hit it, and also volumetric. I’m not gaslighting anyone who push for aim training, I’m just saying APCR isn’t the way. There’s test drives for a reason. Hit map, hit analysis, etc. And the software tools to get better at aiming? Those are exploits. If you’re suggesting people use them, that’s not good but you likely aren’t. And I don’t believe I copied your statement on APCR is inferior to APDS and APFSDS, as you never said it was inferior. All you said was that it’s a good round to train with. Again, lacking good penetration of angled armor, inconsistent spall, and I’m just going to say, I got a free 24hr test drive of a TAM 2IP so I have played 9.3+ before. I can tell you with confidence that top tier is simply point & click if you have APFSDS, as the spalling compared to APCR is simply not the same. APDS has bad spall sure, but it has good angled penetration. And good to know you’ve played every tech tree. I’m only grinding out US since I want the abrams.
@thick_deez_nuts
What do you think training is?
The REASON I said APCR is an excellent training round is cause it’s your raw skill in a round, no hand holding in post-pen. It forces you to learn.
Just as bad-penning guns like that on KV-1 L-11, KV-1E, SAV, etc force you to play slower and more methodically. They don’t hold your hand on penning. Pretty much the polar opposite of 90mm APCR.
Your posts are acting like someone is saying APCR is the bee’s knees when no one is.
The reason why I exclusively use APCR on 90mm guns now is because my skill has surpassed that of the post-pen benefit of APHE for the penetration it has [both have the same 60 degree angled pen].
Fair point, I misunderstood training. But again, APCR and APDS/APFSDS are not the same. If you want to learn APCR to play lower tiers, you can do that. If you want to play top tier with the APFSDS and APDS, then play those. And no, I’ve never said APCR is the bee’s knees. And sure you are good, but not everyone can be the best. APCR could be good for some instances but not all.
