Why is the 76 jumbo at 6.3 br

[israelinoam333]

@PercussionCap

But the reload difference is only 1.5s

I 9.3 it means losing, because:

@PercussionCap

it’s still faster than most tanks you meet

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.

@PercussionCap

Gaijin has a clear bias towards the ever-underperforming USA mains.

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.

@PercussionCap

I have played both and the M4A1 is far better.

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.

@PercussionCap

Let me put it this way.

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.

@PercussionCap

It is pretty wide and has an extremely recognizable profile.

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.

@PercussionCap

Pz IV H never stops any shells with its armor though. It’s no different with the Chi-Nu II and if you’re peeking over cover the Chi-Nu II is actually better protected.

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?

@PercussionCap

a single shot into the turret

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.

@PercussionCap

It is not without its downsides

Like what? It is quite survivable enough, more than Leopards actually.

@PercussionCap

just like the AM-1

For once we actually agree - the AM-1 is far from perfect.

@PercussionCap

they’re a free kill.

israelinoam333:

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.

@PercussionCap

Plenty of german vehicles are in the same sorry state as the Namers.

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.

[FlipAllTheTables]

@israelinoam333

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

Track armor is capped to 15 mm maximum effectiveness.

[fishmonkey]

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.

[fishmonkey]

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…

[ULQ_LOVER]

@israelinoam333

Skill issue? I’m a level 100.

level means nothing in this game

[FlipAllTheTables]

Yeah, I’m level 100 with almost 8k hours, yet I still find myself playing like a complete idiot sometimes.

[Caernarvon02]

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.

[PercussionCap]

@israelinoam333

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

A shipping manifest shows it existed.

@israelinoam333

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

Long range engagements that are extremely rare and 99% of the time you can just avoid them altogether.

@israelinoam333

It has a more powerful gun the most TDs at this BR

M10 is at the same BR with a better gun

@israelinoam333

combined with fine armor

50mm flat, pennable by reserve tanks

@israelinoam333

Meanwhile, the M4A1’s gun depression is not much helpful, as it’s main shell (and, well, all shells) loses velocity pretty quickly

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.

@israelinoam333

and quite hard to aim as well (paired with this gun’s infamous dispersion. You don’t want to snipe with a Sherman).

I have not experienced any of this, sounds like a skill issue idk

@israelinoam333

I wanted to talk about the Pz.IV G, which is essentialy an F2 but with far better armor, at the same BR

This one defininitely does not belong at 3.3 and should go to 3.7.

@israelinoam333

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.

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.

@israelinoam333

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.

It’s not as tall as you’d think. It looks tall since it’s so narrow.

@israelinoam333

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?

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.

[israelinoam333]

@PercussionCap

A shipping manifest shows it existed.

israelinoam333:

Not nearly a good enough proof. Those are not specifications.

@PercussionCap

Long range engagements that are extremely rare and 99% of the time you can just avoid them altogether.

Ahem, ahem, Tunisia, ahem, Ash River, ahem, Karelia, Finland, Carpathians, Flanders, Volokolamsk etc.

@PercussionCap

M10 is at the same BR with a better gun

But is an open-top, with the worst turret traverse in the world.

@PercussionCap

50mm flat, pennable by reserve tanks

israelinoam333:

But you get add-on armor. Besides, I told you I was talking about the G half the time.

@PercussionCap

And -12 is noticeably better than -10.

Still useless in long-range. Gun becomes a peashooter at 700m.

@PercussionCap

I have not experienced any of this, sounds like a skill issue idk

israelinoam333:

Or perhaps you are too used to your shiny German stuff, and that’s why you stick to the Fakewind II.

@PercussionCap

This one defininitely does not belong at 3.3 and should go to 3.7.

israelinoam333:

4.0 would be fine too.

@PercussionCap

I have had no issues penetrating Pz IV Hs with the 75mm M3, whether it was through the front turret or hull.

Because many stupid players forget their add-on.

@PercussionCap

Its strengths lay elsewhere

It’s strengths lay nowhere, almost.

@PercussionCap

And shots into an M4 or T-34 will also often leave the 2 hull crew alive as well

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.

@PercussionCap

It’s an incredibly reliable gun.

That’s the problem - it’s a gun, not a tank. No armor, no nobility, nothing. The IV H is way better.

@PercussionCap

It’s not as tall as you’d think.

The IV is not as wide as you think. It’s just low.

@PercussionCap

if you’re hull-down the chi-nu’s turret sides are an autobounce

This is not relevant. The sides are not to be hit unless your opponent is a complete idiot.

[israelinoam333]

@ULQ_LOVER

level means nothing in this game

But my thousands of games in this BR bracket do.

[israelinoam333]

@FlipAllTheTables

Track armor is capped to 15 mm maximum effectiveness.

95 mm is still almost twice the Chi-Nu’s protection.

[Get_HeshED]

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

[ULQ_LOVER]

You mean 59 games in Jumbo 76? Not really again

[israelinoam333]

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.

[ULQ_LOVER]

@israelinoam333

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.

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

[PercussionCap]

@israelinoam333

Not nearly a good enough proof. Those are not specifications.

Too bad. It existed, it was shipped around, documents probably burned at the end of the war. Or sitting in some archive like the O-I’s.

@israelinoam333

Ahem, ahem, Tunisia

The furthest you’ll shoot regularly is 600m, anything beyond that is so rare that it basically doesn’t happen - or you can avoid it so easily it’s not worth mentioning.

@israelinoam333

, Ash River,

The longest sightline that I am aware of (I5 to B9) is ~900m, and people rarely go to B9 and stay there long enough to be shot at. The rest is like 500m at most.

@israelinoam333

Karelia

600m tops, most combat well below that

@israelinoam333

Finland

Finland is a 1.7km diameter circle. About half of that is ‘unplayable’ since it is around and behind each spawn.Unless there’s tanks on either side of A on the rocks shooting each other this is a short range map.

@israelinoam333

Carpathians

From castle to B it is ~900m and that’s the furthest you’ll go. Most combat happens around the castle and it is short range.

@israelinoam333

Flanders

Flanders isn’t on the wiki yet, however I know the map and at this BR you aren’t going past 800m as seeing tanks through the multitude of trees without thermals is near impossible.

On one side of the map you will actually have repeated engagements at this distance, but the M4A1’s better depression and stabilizer is equally useful to the Pz IV F2’s better gun.

@israelinoam333

Volokolamsk

It is trivial to avoid long range combat in Volokamsk’s numerous hills, ridges, and depressions. C and A are both located in close range sections as well.

@israelinoam333

Besides, I told you I was talking about the G half the time.

…After going on a tirade about the F2.

@israelinoam333

Still useless in long-range. Gun becomes a peashooter at 700m.

I have literally proven to you that it keeps its penetration BETTER than the Pz IV F2’s gun.

@israelinoam333

Or perhaps you are too used to your shiny German stuff, and that’s why you stick to the Fakewind II.

“too used to your shiny german stuff” he says, after I’ve played and spaded all the 75mm shermans in record time due to how good they are. It’s crazy that they’re still at the BRs they are, easiest 10 kill games I’ve ever had.

@israelinoam333

4.0 would be fine too.

Too high, I’d rather have an M4A3 75

@israelinoam333

Because many stupid players forget their add-on.

Just shoot the turret. It’s not that hard. I do it all the time.

@israelinoam333

Shoot the hull if you use Pz.IV. It is quite powerful enough

Worse angle pen than Chi-Nu II means if their hull is angled it will most likely bounce. Hull can be hidden behind cover easily.

The Pz IVs will give them the chance to be left on 2 crew and able to retreat, the Chi-Nu II won’t.

@israelinoam333

That’s the problem - it’s a gun, not a tank

It is faster than the Pz IV H.

0-35kph
Pz IV H: 14.2s (ace crew, maxed Tank Driving)
Chi-Nu II: 13.0s (expert crew, also maxed Tank Driving)
M4: 11.3s (expert crew, not maxed)
M4A1: 11.4s (same as above)

You can add this to the pile of advantages that the M4s have, by the way.

@israelinoam333

The IV is not as wide as you think. It’s just low.

Spoiler

It is considerably wider. It’s the same height (behind all the bushes), it’s slower, the turret has a worse placement (further back), and the gun is worse both in penetration and after penetration.

@israelinoam333

95 mm is still almost twice the Chi-Nu’s protection.

Which you can bypass by shooting the flat turret face, which all the M4s can easily do thanks to their stabilizer - but even if they miss, the reload is far shorter than the Pz IVs, or Chi-Nu II, or T-34.

In my time playing the M4s I’ve had zero difficulties dealing with long barrel Pz IVs. They’re almost free kills.

[Flak_Dancer]

Jumbo 76 is by far the best 6.3 tank in the whole game. His BR is perfeclty fine.

[Get_HeshED]

I haven’t seen such an out of touch with reality claim in a while lmao.

Jumbo 76 is by far one of the worst vehicles at the BR of 6.3 this isn’t something anybody doubts.

What is questionable is whether it should go down to 6.0 and become one of the best 6.0s in the game or stay at 6.3 where it’s undoubtedly subpar.

[Flak_Dancer]

@Get_HeshED

Jumbo 76 is by far one of the worst vehicles at the BR of 6.3 this isn’t something anybody doubts.

Only people never played it and of course the fanatics allies fanboy said a stupidity like that.

Is fine at 6.3. Case closed.

[Get_HeshED]

It is fine because i say so. Period.

Anything from IS-2, through Jagdpanther G1 and T-34-100 ending with stuff like M109 will do better in every single scenario outside of full downtier.