The percentage increase between arcade and realistic is… identical (difference is due to rounding).
That’s because the engines get the same horsepower multiplier applied to them in arcade compared to realistic, which just cancels itself out in the fraction, giving the same result in both arcade and realistic.
What an odd comparison in game and in reality.
I’m purely talking in game. I have no clue what the dispersion of the KwK40 was like in real life.
However, in game, it is literally identical to the 17 pounder (which is really not that good, dispersion wise).
Yeah, my mistake. I only looked at the stock RB performance for some reason.
But why is the performance increase is so big from stock to spaded for the Chi-To?
The Pz IV goes from 10.17 hp/t to merely 11.36 while the Chi-To goes from 11.61 to 16.39
I’m actually not sure, whether mobility upgrades give the same performance increase for all vehicles but I always assumed they do.
It all depends on where you aim and how your angle your tank. For example, a lot of people cry and complain that the tiger shouldn’t be penned by a Sherman because of the 100 mm armor. But if you angled properly, you wouldn’t have died to begin with. Not to mention you can kill a jumbo by shooting the machine gun mantlet.
We have some random elements though and not forgetting crew skill.
By default they do.
However, Gaijin can actually change how much a specific upgrade impacts the horsepower on a tank if they want to. You can see this on the T28 premium heavy tank/tank destroyer, which has mobility upgrades that impact the horsepower a lot more than normal, although it doesn’t matter in this case as it is premium and comes spaded.
However the Chi-To’s case is much simpler: it got a buff in horsepower from 400 to 500 and whomever changed the spaded horsepower values on the wiki forgot to also change the stock horsepower values.
That does go to show, however, that even before the buff and with stock engine the Chi-To still has the same horsepower/ton as a spaded Pz.IV H.
That just sounds like players are being smart and have adapted to the threats they’re facing.
Unironically, aim better because the turret face is completely flat. That’s no exaggeration, it’s a big target on both sides and apart from clipping the mantlet there’s nothing for your shell to get stuck on.
6 pounder was an anti infantry gun for HE not really an anti tank gun and its not a great gun in the game but maybe with a higher muzzle velocity before they bored it out to the 75mm the Churchill VII had.
Either version are not brilliant guns for the BR.The Sherman gun fitted to the NA75 is probably the best Churchill.I presume I am preaching tot he converted here anyway.
Anti infantry or not, it can penetrate 50mm of flat armor to much greater ranges than 99% of players can shoot to.
I would not bet on a Churchill or Cromwell taking out a Panzer IV from the front before the Panzer IV got the UK tank.The chances of a 57mm bouncing off the front of a panzer turret are high so to me its a bad example.
The OP’s tank,the VII has a 75mm which actually had lower muzzle velocity and is a poorer AT gun.My point is the OP had nothing to moan about regarding facing the Panzer IV as far as I can see.The game played out as I might expect having played the Panzer IV so many times.
I love the Panzer IV and I think it is in the correct BR range but it wont take the hits like a T34 will or maybe a Sherman if you are aiming at the dome turret.I think all 3 of those tanks are as well balanced as this game gets.In fact I would leave the WW2 era alone and sort top tier out if I were Gaijin.
Like you say if you play the UK then you really do need to know where to hit.
You look at this image and tell me how 50mm of flat armor, even with T-34 tracks on top for another 15mm, is gonna stop a 6pdr. Because it’s not even close to stopping the 75mm and the 6pdr has more penetration.
Like I have said before ,we dont know the OPs circumstances. So if the enemy had bushes like your pick or was angling or moving the turret then anything can happen.I also dont know what point you are making? Are you attacking the OP or defending him? Are you attacking the Panzer IV or defending it? You want a proven Panzer killer then NA75 is the way to go if you want to avoid the big exchange you will most likely get when facing a P4 face on from any kind of distance in a Churchill .
I’m making the point that the Pz IV’s armor is shit. Sure it has a good gun and can kill most things it sees easily - the same is true in return. It doesn’t have in any way, shape, or form, “near Tiger level of protection” as was claimed by someone else. Even with bushes, you can still see the barrel and guesstimate where the gunner side is.
Sure we don’t know the situation OP was in, but we do know that the Pz IV has practically no armor. The same cannot be said for a Churchill 7 being shot at by one - angle it a little and outside of pretty small weakspots, it’s pretty much invulnerable.
I wouldn’t say that and there is a big difference in Panzer IVs across the board from early to late.Its a tank that has to be played a certain way.It has Tiger like similarities in some ways but at a lower level.Its a box so it can be angled. I don’t agree with calls for it to uptierd in any way though.
as for the Churchill I can only leave this
The side armor is extremely thin and to make matters worse it angles inwards. Angling in the hull of the Pz.IV H can make it substantially more vulnerable to cannons like the Russian 76 mm which otherwise would have more trouble penetrating.
And all that in the assumption that you get shot in the hull in the first place. Angling a Pz.IV only works if someone has quite literally no idea where to shoot.
I dont see your logic ,sloping armour increases thickness so angling would do the same whether intentionally angling or not.
By angling the front of the Pz.IV H, you actively have to decrease the impact angle on the side armor.
The side armor is already angled inwards and is extremely weak. This means you cannot angle much at all without having your sides easily penetrable.
Against something like the Russian 76 mm, angling just around 10 degrees makes the inwards angled side armor already vulnerable to the APHEBC rounds.
huh…? DUDE the 6 pounder legit knocked out the First 3 Tigers in North Africa, it was a AMAZING Anti Tank gun, it was not for Anti infantry, infact its HE rounds were so bad the British Nor the Russians who got a few Churchill MKIIIs through lend lease, NEVER used the HE rounds.
Yes its correct angling the tank puts the armour at a different angle and increases the thickness of the armour ,that is why the Panzer deflects shots when it suddenly turns as you are firing at it.Its physics that wont go away.Nearly every tank is a target if hit from the side.To say the Panzer is a glass cannon is rubbish,surely we all know that it isn’t ,we play the game ,right?
I would say that this a fine appraisal of the Churchill VII ,this is how I find it to be in the game.A good armoured tank with an average gun that is not totally impervious tot he Panzer IV gun.
