the good cromwells and churchills start at 3.7 and the achilles is so cumbersome I’ve never enjoyed it
And then what? You will randomly rush him and pray for him to be alone?
Barelling an enenemy is meaningless if you can’t finish him off.
If you’re not rushing in alone someone else can do it, being able to survive an encounter isn’t meaningless.
If you can’t finish off your enemy in the tank of the same class no matter what you do frontally and need to rely on someone from your team who might or might not show up, it’s no longer even close to being an equal fight
You can’t put every tank with less than 190mm of pen at 5.3 or lower because you think you should be able to front pen heavies at all times.
1 Like
I 9.3 it means losing, because:
At 9.3, most players already have highly upgraded crew skills (unless you play Israel, in that case you get a big go hell yourself from Snail), and thus get a reload of around 8.0-7.0 seconds with basic or expert crews. This means that while the MBT-70 has an average and regular reload rate, the KPz has a faster one, allowing more aggressive, mistake-forgiving gameplay. At a BR this high, reaction times such as reload and targeting speed are critical. Since almost everyone gets a full stab gun with super high velocity shells and great mobility (AKA MBTs), reload time is insanely important. with a longer reload, you just cannot make any mistakes - this is why the T-80BVM is often considered better in-game than the T-90M, despite the latter being way more modern and well-protected: a 0.6 seconds difference of reload.
Yes, but not as much as Germany - look at the new 5.7 pack, for instance. You get two uparmored Tigers, very well, but also a COMPLETLEY FICTIONAL Ostwind II. Not only that the Ostwind II was never fielded to the eastern front, it literally was never built. It is still the best SPAA at 5.7, despite the fact that no one can really know how it should perform, because again, it just isn’t real.
I have played the M4A1 a lot, and it is indeed the king of close-quarters combat, but at long-range engagements there is nothing close to the F2. It has a more powerful gun the most TDs at this BR, combined with fine armor and mobility and with good gun depression. Meanwhile, the M4A1’s gun depression is not much helpful, as it’s main shell (and, well, all shells) loses velocity pretty quickly. This makes the gun relatively uneffective at long range, and quite hard to aim as well (paired with this gun’s infamous dispersion. You don’t want to snipe with a Sherman).
And I must apologize, I was completley mistaken! I wanted to talk about the Pz.IV G, which is essentialy an F2 but with far better armor, at the same BR - a slightly better vehicle than the infamous M4A1 and the T-34 (1940). The F2 is still a decent equivalent to the M4A1 though, and is more well-suited for uptiers.
Let me put it this way: the Pz.IV H has 80 mm of armor on it’s nearly-straight parts of the UFP, which is impenatrable for T-34 at 500m and for M4 at ~700m. The Chi-Nu’s UFP straight parts are 50 mm, which means all guns at the BR can pen it at 1500m. Both have a turret face of 50 mm. Both have a 50 mm cupola. The IV H’s sloped part is 20 mm at 72 degrees, while Chi-Nu’s is 12 mm at 76 degrees. Chi-Nu has sude armor of 20-25 mm, Pz.IV has 30 mm. Apart from the big difference in the UFP straight parts, this seems nearly balanced, right? Right…? Well, no. You forgot that the Pz.IV H gets to add 20 mm of track armor over it’s ENTIRE FRONT. That makes it’s whole hull basically invulnerable to any T-34 or Sherman at the BR, while the turret, which is now 70 mm thick, is a tiny and hard to hit weakspot, which most of the time will leave 2 crewmen alive and well. The Chi-Nu II even has a slower reload, and is less mobile, AND due to it’s compact size can be one-shot all of the time, even by the 27 grams of TNT the Pz.IV gets. I don’t say having more TNT in your shell is good, I just think that it’s not even close to cover all the other flaws of the Chi-Nu II, at least compared to the much easier to play Pz.IV H.
Width matters nott in long range combat, which is the subject of our arguement about the Pz.IV H and Chi-Nu II. Height does, and unfortunately, the Chi-Nu is quite high.
I have 'non-pen’ed a IV H countless times. Skill issue? I’m a level 100. It’s not likely.
Chi-Nu is better protected?
If I had a nickel for every time I shot a Turm and it did absolutely nothing, I’d be pretty reach by now. It has a way of not making any spall and not dying to anything at all, and is somehow more survivable (I calculated the statistics) than a regular Leopard I, and even than a Centurion Mk.3.
Like what? It is quite survivable enough, more than Leopards actually.
For once we actually agree - the AM-1 is far from perfect.
They are head-on kings, turn fairly well and have devastating guns. They are also faster than anything that’s not a P-51, BF-109 or a Spitfire.
Except the actually have some mobility to go with, and their Spike launchers are not pointed permanently (unlike real life BTW) up in 60 degrees, so they can’t launch at enemies below 300 meters AT ALL. Also, they have some ammo not in the turret, in case the turret blows up.
Hope that helps you.
Track armor is capped to 15 mm maximum effectiveness.
P-51H-5-NA is the best prop in the game, at a lower BR than the Mk. 24, so hey at least the P-51s get something good.
Gonna be honest, I had a love-hate relationship with my 7.7 lineup - yes I had insane penetration, but the ridiculous amount of ricochets (despite the on-paper superior ricochet performance of APDS compared to solid shot), non-pens and shell-shatterings from the APDS was so incredibly frustrating. Add mediocre mobility and insignificant armour, and the Centurion Mk. 3 and Caernaveron were very painful for me. The joy at unlocking the L7 cannon was immeasurable…
level means nothing in this game
2 Likes
Yeah, I’m level 100 with almost 8k hours, yet I still find myself playing like a complete idiot sometimes.
5 Likes
the best P51s are very good ill give you that but don’t even hold a candle to 5.7 spitfires as a fighter, the LF mkIXc will whip it in every way other than top speed and CAS loads let alone the mk22 and mk24.
Its 6.3 so the BR difference isnt really anything of significance especially as 6.7 is a power BR in ground and air battles so they will almost always fight the same matches no matter what.
Its got worse top speeds, climb, turn-time, overall aerobatic potential and far worse guns. its only saving grace is its bomb payload for CAS but doesn’t have the guns go do any top attacks after, which the spitfire mk24 very much has.
A shipping manifest shows it existed.
Long range engagements that are extremely rare and 99% of the time you can just avoid them altogether.
M10 is at the same BR with a better gun
50mm flat, pennable by reserve tanks
It doesn’t. Its starting velocity isn’t great but it doesn’t lose its speed any faster than other shells. At 2000m it keeps 65% of its original pen vs 63% for the Pz IV F2.
And -12 is noticeably better than -10.
I have not experienced any of this, sounds like a skill issue idk
This one defininitely does not belong at 3.3 and should go to 3.7.
I have had no issues penetrating Pz IV Hs with the 75mm M3, whether it was through the front turret or hull. Yes, the Chi-Nu is paper - it has the same armor as the Ho-I at a much lower BR. Its strengths lay elsewhere, this is no surprise.
And shots into an M4 or T-34 will also often leave the 2 hull crew alive as well, unless you’re using a shell with higher than average filler - like the Chi-Nu II’s.
Reload is barely any worse and I’d say the increased postpen + better penetration both flat AND angled more than compensates for it. It’s an incredibly reliable gun.
It’s not as tall as you’d think. It looks tall since it’s so narrow.
Volumetric exists, yes. I don’t count that as “armor”. And yes, if you’re hull-down the chi-nu’s turret sides are an autobounce, though I’m not claiming the entire tank is better protected.
Not nearly a good enough proof. Those are not specifications.
Ahem, ahem, Tunisia, ahem, Ash River, ahem, Karelia, Finland, Carpathians, Flanders, Volokolamsk etc.
But is an open-top, with the worst turret traverse in the world.
But you get add-on armor. Besides, I told you I was talking about the G half the time.
Still useless in long-range. Gun becomes a peashooter at 700m.
Or perhaps you are too used to your shiny German stuff, and that’s why you stick to the Fakewind II.
4.0 would be fine too.
Because many stupid players forget their add-on.
It’s strengths lay nowhere, almost.
Shoot the hull if you use Pz.IV. It is quite powerful enough. Only the T-34E STZ will bounce, and even with the skill issues you think I have, I would still easily distinguis it from a 1941 at 500m.
That’s the problem - it’s a gun, not a tank. No armor, no nobility, nothing. The IV H is way better.
The IV is not as wide as you think. It’s just low.
This is not relevant. The sides are not to be hit unless your opponent is a complete idiot.
But my thousands of games in this BR bracket do.
95 mm is still almost twice the Chi-Nu’s protection.
except it’s not what i am even asking for? There is a difference between having 190 pen and having 100 pen. On a heavy tank. When it comes to heavy tanks with below 110 pen i believe it would already be understandable.
It’s normal for lights or meds to not be able to pen a fat heavy tank frontally, it kind of is for other heavies who do have some other redeeming qualities in exchange as well like for example T26E5 which btw is afaik only example of 6.7 heavy which has trouble dealing with T2h frontally.
Jumbo just doesn’t get anything to compare with 2h. It has basically no armor outside of full downtier, no penetration and no mobility. It has basically nothing outside of stabiliser which is not enough to make up for everything else
You mean 59 games in Jumbo 76? Not really again
1 Like
I was talking about 3.3-4.3 BR, which was the subject of my arguement with @PercussionCap . We were talking about Pz.IV, T-34, M4 and Chi-Nu.
BTW, I did play hundreds over hundreds of battles with 6.0-7.0 vehicles, such as T-44, T-44-100, M-51 etc. The fact that the M4A3E2 (76) W is one of my newer vehicles doesn’t change the large amount of rank 4 battles I’ve played, although, AGAIN, I was talking about 3.3-4.3.
And You were trying to say that because of a lvl or number of games played You might not have a skill issue? Again, laughable.
Pz IV H is nothing good when it comes to turret armor, especially when being faught against with M4 or even T-34
1 Like