50 more grams of TNT is not “barely” better
You’re talking the difference between a side shot killing a tank or not
They’re both fast, the EBR is much smaller letting it hide much better
The EBR’s turret also rotates twice as fast
For the gun alone the EBR is better, add in the rest it justifies the increase in BR
I don’t understand why you want to play this tank below 5.3 anyway as that’s where France’s mid WW2 lineup is positioned
none of that comes even close to justify a 2.0 br gap, the extra 34g (not 50) only really matters at 3.3, not at 5.3.
becase france does have line ups at lower br, and there’s literally comparable vehicles at a MUCH LOWER br than it.
[
well with the puma you can kill tanks from the front at that br, that way more of a difference…
EBR 1951 vs SdK 1943…
I have one tip : I play the EBRs at much higher tiers that they are intended to and I get better results because you face light vehicles with thin armor. Try it and you will be surprised! You can have a real impact on the team result with this thing. You can move fast to capture, you can scout, you can really annoy heavy vehicles by harassing them and disabling them shooting their tracks, their barrels… and then you let your team finish the job, you will get assists and its not bad.
Beware that people will insult you on the chat XD
About time for the AEC II to go up as basically exactly same as the Puma (different pros and cons). Restricted Event status needs to be taken into account.
But the Puma already is the only scout vehicle Germany gets until 6.3 so it already IS uptiered in most respects.
The Puma already went from 2.7 to 3.0 and now 3.3. M24 is comparable with very different pros and cons. France for once doesn’t lack in light scouts, just lacks almost everything else. And yes the minor nation debuff is going to rear its nasty head.
Making lights light again is difficult but pushing Germanys only light vehicle seems harsh. And if you remember the first EBR was far too low (them not adding tech tree versions of these and many other event vehicles that are key to lineups is a cardinal sin, it can be done as Comet and Firefly already so this)
The problem I find is that, just like CAS,most players in ground vehicles do not understand them nor the game (as in CAS generally used badly too).
If they could curb all those going to the alley in Berlin and going A only on Factory the game would improve 100 fold (anyone remember that a few years back A on Berlin was ALWAYS ignored and most went B and C and ignored the west flank; never any middle ground just one extremely poor decision to another… Gaijin and its players are quite similar, yeah?)
Puma can do this too, this is frankly a mediocre stat, only 4 kills and 3 caps.
Imo, they should be same BR. Puma has advantages, and EBR has advantages. But yeah, 5.3 is absolutely criminal.
Not sure what your point is. Puma and EBR are near identical, yet 1.7 away from eachother. Is that not a fair comparison?
They aren’t quite equivalent, the biggest issues are the horrible turret traverse on the Puma and the fairly wimpy gun. Being low caliber hurts the angled pen quite a bit and results in less oneshots, which are pretty important when you get a flank on several people at once and need to take them out quickly before you’re noticed. The Puma’s advantages in RoF and APCR don’t quite make up for this.
That being said, there’s no way those few differences account for 1.7 BR difference. This is a 0.3/0.7 BR difference at best.
For reference, give the Leopard 1 a stabilizer, a 5 second autoloader, 2 more degrees of gun depression and the Falcon’s 30mm and it goes up 0.3 BR.
(I know this is a serious necro, but this particular issue remains even a year later, so it’s still relevant).
I mean yeah, ofc they’re not the same, but even a 0.3 difference is kinda large for them.
Player stats are vehicle stats effectively and I’ll tell you why.
You’re post here is a good example, you’re trying to compare the vehicles by narrowing them down to a few specific elements and discuss the BR difference. At the end of the day, the vehicle is either all of its characteristics or none of them.
By choosing the player performance you’re still getting the best indication of the vehicles performance in battles where players need to use all of the vehicles stats in a dynamic environment. The best players in the game are still only a fraction of a percent of the people using the vehicles. In my opinion, the evidence for this is that BR changes typically follow changes in meta.
There are so many stats or performance indicators that arent listed as data and you’d need to test yourself. One key difference is the profile, centre of gravity, spring stiffness and travel in the suspension, all culminating in the recoil after firing which for the puma atleast would be more exaggerated when shooting at the 3 and 9 oclock position, not to mention how terrain undulation affects gun laying time
If you wanted to have genuine discussion about the difference in BR you should probably ignore the similarities as its clearly not top speed or penetration that is driving a 2 BR gap.
The puma has suprisingly, less armour than the EBR, its turret traverse is glacial, and the gun is really piddly. It is APHE but it still extremely un reliable on 1 shots
The EBR has a much faster turret traverse, and the gun is brilliant at 1 shotting. Its the same shell as the 75mm shermans, and the Chaffee.
Its also faster and better over bad terrain than the Puma if I remember correctly.
I cant remember if it has the short stab that shermans have or not, but I feel like it doesnt.
While I also am not entirely sure its 5.3 levels of good, its definitely way better than the Puma. 4.7 at least
Also for the person comparing to the chaffee, the chaffee is definitely strong, but I think the EBR is actually better. Chaffee could easily go to 4.0 or 4.3 though tbh.
