APCR means:
Armor
Piercing
COMPOSITE
Rigid
If you replace a tungsten core with steel, it’s an AP shell using APCR design but that doesn’t make it APCR.
APCR implies the use of a dense penetrator that isn’t steel.
HVAP would be more appropriate.
Since HVAP simply means an AP round with increased velocity.
Just because it’s not implemented in WT doesn’t mean it wasn’t like that in reality.
Here, let me blow your mind when I show you Soviet 23mm API, like for the IL-2:
this statement is entirely wrong. Sturmpanzer has survivability, damage and relatively good reload for guaranteed kill on 1.0. Im being quiet about 180 mm HEAT, which you can use up to tier IV
Fair enough, same principle, different materials. I’ve always thought it was just hardened penetrator with softer outer shell, I didn’t realize there was some rule about what the penetrator had to be made from.
telling me Gaijin modeled somethin incorrectly is not exactly mind blowing…
20mm AP at 800 RPM also is a lot of damage when it pens and you don’t have a couple seconds reload after a burst unlike a cannon.
A T-60 can kill a bunch of low tier tanks in seconds.
Maybe you can’t pen a Pz III but if a Pz III gets killed by a T-26-4 then because he gave him the time to aim his gun.
Unless you play the T-26-4 very defensively and make use of the low muzzle velocity to lob shells, pretty much any tank is going to kill it before it can shoot at them.
T-60 can at least bounce some shots from he front.
Wow, 180mm pen on a slow casemate that can be .50caled with a 11s reload and an effective range of 250m.
That surely is very effective.
Any tank in existence is going to disable the Sturmpanzer before it can shoot them.
I said I’d rather use the T60 than those stuff. There are definitely stuff those tanks are better at, but I just prefer the T60.
Their mobility means I can run away from them quite easily too.
58 rounds is enough for me to take out 2 or 3 targets without reloading, not to mention being extremely potent with air targets.
I said most, and you are forgetting some of the other weird ones at 1.0
I think most of the targets I come across are pretty killable, the stuff I have trouble with are onl
250m range? boy you’re unskilled.
My opinion on the T-60 is that, at least right now, there are quite a few vehicles with very light armor, because when the T-60 was introduced, there weren’t many vehicles with 12mm of armor. It must be acknowledged that to use the T-60 correctly, you need to have a good understanding of enemy armor, knowing who to shoot at and in what situation, and in which situations not to.
PS: A week ago I started restarting the French tech tree, using tanks from Era 1, and I have to admit it’s a truly frustrating start. The BR 1.0 tanks they removed are a nightmare. Both the H35 and FCM are terrible because of the APCR, which makes them almost useless against most reserve tanks, often just bouncing off the tanks’ rear ends. Their armor is practically worthless, as many reserve tanks from other countries penetrate them without issue, and then the Soviet APBC negates any sloped armor you might have. The AMC 34YR, despite having less penetration, is APHE, but it penetrates sloped armor better, and it also kills with one shot, making it a better tank. Once you get past that, you have the French with the longer 37mm gun, which is also a rather disappointing weapon due to the silly ricochets and, above all, the excessive damage. Small, it’s very common for side shots on the BT-5 and 7 to be stopped by the fuel tanks, or you only kill the gunner, while the armor of these tanks is the same as the previous ones, armor that is negated by the cannons of most enemies. In the Br 1.3 it doesn’t vary much, you change to a 47mm cannon, which doesn’t do much more than the 37mm, your armor is still negated by enemy cannons and you do extremely little damage. My summary of the French Era 1 tanks would be, tanks with low penetration, low damage and thick but insufficient armor, only the tanks with the 25mm cannon and the Lorraine with the long 47mm cannon are exceptions, while the Char D2 holds its own somewhat with its armor, although of course the Soviet APHE eliminates it extremely easily. In my opinion, both the Char 2C and the Char B1Bis should be in Br 2.0 at most, since for example, the B1Bis has the same disappointing 47mm gun, while the Char 2C is huge, slow and without armor, only saving itself by having a crew of 12, and above all the APHE, which leads me to understand that it is at Br 2.3 for the simple fact that the previous tanks are so bad, that lowering the Br would mean that the French Br 1.3 would end up being reserve tanks or Br 1.0.
For the challenge of a historically relevant vehicle that doesn’t fit the WT meme. It was designed as an infantry support tank. The autocannon is for laying suppressive fire not anti-tank.
It doesn’t have anything to do with skill.
It’s physics.
Also my skill is irrelevant because the performance of a vehicle depends on the user and the average player is not going to hit anything outside the muzzle velocity of the shell reliably.
Ik, but then it was a stupid idea to put it to the game in the first place. At least in arcady games they could give it imaginary ammo for more potency, but not here. It is awesome in Enlisted as I’ve checked yesterday tho. I worked as an actual tank support vehicle (T-60 gives me a lot of Terminator vibes) so I did great at protecting our T-28 from anti tank infantry lol
AMC.34 would be fun even with it’s poor velocity, but then there is another issue… RELOAD SPEED. Like 6-7 seconds to load a damn 47mm grenade, thats like one-hand job. Gaijin is horrible at balancing low tier reload speeds
I gound T-60 a fairly good vehicle capable of doing funnies. Yeah, you don’t pen a lot, reload rate is atrocious, so is the gun handling, but firerate + the type of enemies you encounter make this thing fairly effective.
Obviously French tanks and some 2.0 tanks are your cryptonite, but I mostly see Stuarts and A13s in battles, as well as other SPAAs and SPGs with little to no armor, so 1.0 is fine and tank itself is also fine
Wasn’t there a soviet document somewhere that stated that the rate of fire was reduced to 200 RPM?:
Not that I know off.
I‘m sure thats just supposed to be the maximum practical RoF.
Like dumping one belt after another.
Which of course wouldn’t happen in reality.
If it wasn’t for gun shortages, the T-60 would have been equipped with a DShK machine gun like the T-40.
That’s practical rate of fire.
Not the RoF of the gun itself.
OP compared to french 1.0s
