OK, so you have none, you just troll. Welcome to ignore list.
Sound scouting is the main reason flanking is so ineffective unless you’re playing vs people listening to youtube podcasts. A game about thick armored tanks firing super loud guns in a super loud frontline setting is the game where the precise sound clues sound are the most important, just briliant. It’s counter-productive and illogical.
Seriously, show me any other game where you can’t reduce your sound signature while flanking, while camper gets all the possible benefits, as he can’t be sound scouted, even without engine off, tanks that are not moving are very quiet.
I mean, show me in late 2026, because I won’t be reading your comments for quite some time, lol.
Also 38mm stops Ostwind at some distance, when angled a bit it’s a no-go.
Japanese tanks? Easy penetration.
Ostwind is my favourite German 3.3 vehicle and I love Japan and Sweden.
People act like in WT only proper tank guns hit you.
Also some tanks fairly close to 3.3 have like what, 55mm pen with APHE (Sweden, again), there is T-126 with 45mm that also drops below 60mm quite fast.
Bedt weapon of 2.7-3.3 - Sweden’s Bofors with APHE is pretty similar, though worse vs angles.
These weapons will often bounce if M4A1 has its side angled, and Japan is again - easy pen.
Even M4A1 vs Pz IV is a big practical difference, there may be some “overmatch” code going on, because for some time Soviet 76mm penetrated that 30mm side at like 12 degrees, lol.
Earlier I have posted in one reply, nine videos of pulling flanks off with German vehicles. Many of those flanking routes are pretty obvious and some definitely qualify as very wide (Hürtgen, Campania). I really don’t understand the negativity. It can be done. Yes, the maps have worsened, which is why I only picked videos of maps where you can still use all those areas, else I would have added this:
Lol. Thank goodness. You’ve been stinking this topic up with your whines and terrible takes, now I can comment in peace. Hopefully you’ll get better at the game soon enough.
Remember at that BR range you meet:
T-34 that has like 90 pen with solid shell.
Pz III and Poomer that have around 95 pen at 100m.
Other Shermans.
KV-1L11.
45mm armed T-50 and T-126.
And plenty of other tanks that will struggle to pen if you are angled or uneven terrain helps your UFP.
Basically only Pz IIIN, Pz IV and some TDs can penetrate you reliably.
Every single one of those can pen an M4A1 frontally, angled or not, in three useful spots.
Immediately below the turret is a 19.5mm plate that’s sloped, but not enough to prevent rounds simply overmatching through it. Even the T-50’s 45mm can manage it reliably at 500m. If he’s firing down at you, increasing the angle, the driver’s hatches on both sides are still flat enough to hit.
Also, you can simply aim for the sloped plate immediately above the tracks. The 38mm side armor extends out into the frontal profile, and normalizes enough for practically anything (yes, including the 45mm APHE) to punch right through. This spot only gets worse if he attempts to angle.
It’s particularly funny of you to shout out the Russian 76mm here, as with it’s completely bonkers shell normalization it can overmatch through almost the entire frontal plate at 500m, except for a narrow strip between the top of the headlights and the driver ports.
The M4A1 only has armor if your enemies have no idea what they’re doing. Something equally true of the later Panzer 4s, with their add on track armor, overlapping plates and black hole driver ports/machine gun ports.
well, thats also a fair point even tho those tanks are usually lower by br. But yes, the sherman at 3.3 is also a little bit too low. But it has many spots to get killef frontally so that BR is somewhat not that troublesome as panzer 4 F2s
WOW, 3 USEFUL SPOTS!!!
See, same BR tanks have 3 entire SPOTS, wow!
By the same logic KV-1E is made of paper.
Meanwhile in reality, mediums are supposed to move and aim quickly. Before your enemy finds your “useful spot”, he’s dead, and even if he does, if you’re moving, angles are changing and there’s a huge chance they’ll bounce.
Same story at distance.
The whole “aiming down” - yeah super common situation. If enemy is aiming down, Tiger II or Churchill VII can get roflpenned by Soviet early 76mm in the turret roof.
M4A1 has excellent protection.
But if we apply the logic of “but it has 3 USEFUL SPOTS, IT’S PAPER, LMAO”, then no tank is well protected.
Said spots are large, obvious, easy to hit, constantly available, and cannot be negated by angling. Comparing them to the KV-1E’s frontal profile, with weakspots measured in dozens of pixels, is laughably disingenuous.
Firstly, compare the targets a T-34 has to hit (IE almost the entire UFP), with the targets a Sherman has to hit on a T-34 (Flatish parts of the fairly small turret). A T-34 has a much easier go of it.
Yes, the Sherman has a stabilizer to help out, but it’s not a unbeatable advantage. If the Sherman blunders into an ambush, he’s cooked regardless of the stabilizer. If the T-34 gets the drop on a Sherman that’s looking at something else, same again.
Helps to read the argument you’re up against before replying, makes you look a little less silly. I was talking about if the M4A1 was using it’s gun depression and firing down on you, which increases the effective angle on the UFP. You know, the thing you were talking about in the post I replied to?
Apparently, “excellent protection” translates to “Can be consistently frontally penetrated by AA guns”. Who knew?
What makes a tank well protected isn’t a lack of weakspots, but it’s weakspots that can be hidden, or otherwise difficult to hit. A KV-1E is well protected because you can easily angle to make it immune to most conventional rounds it can meet. A Jumbo is well protected because the machine gun port is small and easy to hide, not to mention troll even if it’s hit. An M4A1, with it’s huge weakspots, is only well protected if the enemy makes no attempt to hit said weakspots.
I’m not sure whether you’re trolling or joking, because this is yet another ‘Germany suffers’ thread, but I wanted to point out a few things anyway.
A br jump of 1.0 or more for the Pz IVs, as you are suggesting, would suggest that these vehicles are overpowered. It would be like when the puma ifv was first added at 8.3 or something. However, the global stats for the Pz IVs show that they are performing average, not bad, but certainly not extremely well either. You could argue that this is simply because German mains are poor, but good or experienced players often flock to powerful or meta vehicles too (like the LMUR helicopter or the Coelian when it got APHE).
Your statements become even more outlandish when you consider your own stats with them. You’re clearly not an inexperienced player, with an impressive overall K/D of around 1.85/1, yet you only manage a K/D of 1.57 in the pz IV H, which you consider so powerful that it should increase from 3.7 to 4.7. I would consider your arguments valid if your K/D ratio was 3/1 (substantially better than your average), as it is in the KV-1E.
It’s also always amusing to see people like you whose best performing german tanks in rank II and III are the captured ones, such as the T34, KV-1 and Churchill.
Also have you ever considered that the Japanese tanks are just at too high of a br? I have a feeling that GJ has some sort of problem with low tier japan, especially after moving the Chi-Ri to 5.7. I personally had a pretty mixed experience witht the japanese tanks. Some are pretty good (I did like the Chi-Tos) but many leave a lot to be desired. Or perhaps I just suck at the game.
Sorry, I subconsciously assumednd you’re not making an argument for hitting target that at such angle (and in general) is hard to hit and usually obscured by terrain, sorry, my bad.
The turret laughs in T-34’s face, while the hull has the toughest part in the middle.
So you either aim at the strip on top - risking non pen vs turret or glacis, or you aim closer to the edge, as low shots are very likely to hit transmission, which means the turret remains operational, and we don’t want that to happen.
I may be looking at this tank slightly from below, but guess what, such is life.
Turret is very well protected.
But it’s worth noting that T-34’s 76mm gun has angled penetration that puts long-rod penetrators to shame.
The correct target is the hull angle, but watch out for sherman making turns or stopping, since you’re aiming at the outer edge of the tank.
Is this tank well protected for a heavy?
No.
But for a medium it’s damn solid, go hulldown and you can laugh at poor T-34, I’ll take good turret over good hull any day.
Vs Pz IIIL: most of the turret front and large part of the hull is a no-go.
Again - is it “reliable” protection.
Nope.
Is there a good chance a shot will bounce?
Hell yeah.
Meanwhile T-34 and Pz IV get penetrated by 45mm from like 500m away.
So while I can partially agree, that M4 is not as tough as I assumed vs some guns (I did not expect the green strip right above transmission), the bottom “green” area is slightly smaller when one actually tests it, and also the lower weakspot is, the less likely is the shot will stop the tank from firing back.
Wow, you can also 1 v 6 in Air RB. Again, some 0,1% elite level argument is non-viable, unless enemy players are also super-cracked.
Dude was talking about getting nukes while camping in one of the most busted vehicles ever, it’s like me bragging how BI can curbstomp planes - it’s pointless.
And this is not “flanking”, just driving forward and destroying people, then destroying people to your sides.
For normal people flanking means avoiding direct engagement to score some sideshots.
Of course if you f.e. take out Jumbo with 500m MG shot, then remove Su-100 with cupola snipe and roll over whatever the enemy has left, you then can shoot the remaining enemies in the side.
It happens even to me, although rarely.
But that’s not “flanking”. That’s normal gameplay.
I agree that it is a bit overtiered and could probably drop down to 4.3
So now comparing that to the Pz 4 H.
Chi-To has better
armor
speed
Hp/ton
Gun pen
Gun damage
Optics
On the other hand Pz 4 H has better
reload
turret rotation
Based on the above there’s no way the Pz can go to 4.3 if that’s where the Chi-To drops down to. So Pz 4 H could realistically go to 4.0. I would leave the J at 3.7 since it is a step down from the H.
As I said in another thread:
Yes, you CAN lose in a top tier MBT against a reserve tank. Doesn’t mean it should be balanced by lowest common denominator.
