The T32 can be killed by nearly any tank through the hull MG port or the lower plate by some, this makes it much less survivable than the T32E1, which can be much more aggressive.
Not to mention the greater resistance to +150mm HE rounds against the turret.
Honestly kinda the same story with the Tiger II P and H at the moment.
Unless one vehicle is going to be outright worse and only serves to block the progress to the objectively better vehicle, this balance doesn’t make sense.
Neither T32 nor Tiger II P are going to be as effective as the more armored version in a down tier.
You’re not making any sense. Not only is 6.7 laughable but what’s the logic in lowering one vehicle in BR which makes it stronger so that one vehicle that can potentially take it out becomes more efficent at the BR range they’re going to meet?
The T32E1 is not only much better armored than the Tiger II H at 6.7 but it also has far better mobility.
Tanks that can penetrate the T32E1 can only do so with HEAT, which excludes all heavy and almost all medium tanks. Only the IS-3 comes close to the protection level but has severly reduced efficency due to low traverse speed and overall poor mobility.
Thus the T32E1 can’t be 7.3.
A single 6.3 glass cannon with APDS is not an argument compared to each nation having plently of vehicle that can penetrate the Tiger II H from the front or simply when the turret is angled 30°.
Again, it doesn’t matter that vehicles can “penetrate” the T32 with APDS or HEAT because the Tiger II can be penetrated by vehicles with APHE.
Also get it into your head that a T32 has major advantage in mobility over the Tiger II H.
If the Tiger II H had just T32 mobility it would be 7.3 just because of the combination of armor, firepower and mobility.
Penetration is irrelevant when you’re vehicle is much worse at putting it’s gun on the enemy tank.
An casemate ASU-85 or a M-51 with 11.5hp/t compared to a T32 with 14hp/t is not going to win against a T32E1 90% of the time.
It doesn’t matter that a vehicle can be penetrated by some or that some vehicles can penetrate a large number of vehicles. What matters is: Are these vehicle actually effective?
Why should a vehicle that can pen everything but only gets 1-2 kills per game on average be used in an argument over a vehicle that can’t do that but has much better performance and gets 4-5 kills every game?
If a vehicle can’t pen a Tiger II H, it still has an advantage in mobility to either be in a position to take it out or simply kill enemies before the Tiger II H does.
There’s no chance of the T32E1 to be moved to 7.3 compared to a very high likelyhood of the Tiger II H moving to 7.0.
The cannon is to weak for 7.7. It’s perfect at 7.3 because it’s not OP. Only the armor is good. APCR is the answer. USA and some other nations know all about APCR rounds. I use it against MAUS in my t32 all the time because I can’t pen it from the front with APCBC.
Now you’re just changing the argument. You said nothing below 7.3 could penetrate the T32, but there are multiple vehicles in each tree that can do it. Now you’re saying that being able to frontally penetrate it doesn’t matter, unless those vehicles are resistant to the T32. How does that make sense? If a vehicle could easily kill the T32 but the T32 couldn’t kill it, why would that vehicle be at a lower BR than the T32?
Let’s also not ignore the fact that any US vehicle that can kill the Tiger II H, but the Super Pershing and T34, is a glass cannon relative to the Tiger II H.
I’m saying that the argument, the T32E1 could be 7.3, is not valid based on the fact that SOME vehicle can penetrate it.
The ability of vehicles to penetrate others gives us zero clue about their actual performance.
Not to mention that the same argument could be used to justifiy vehicles like the IS-4M or Maus being 7.3, because some vehicles can still penetrate them despite their armor.
You can not built an argument about vehicles performance based on a single attribute.
Vehicles are not balanced based on how much armor they have and how much armor they can penetrate.
What do you mean, easily? Penetration is irrelevant if you can’t shoot a vehicle.
Can a Marder III easily penetrate a Sherman or T-34? Yes.
Does it have the upper hand in a fight? No.
Oh we can ignore that part because it doesn’t make any sense. Except the Super Pershing and T34?
So basically everything that is not a heavy tank is a glass cannon compared to the Tiger II H?
What does that matter? As long as these vehicles are effective in getting kills they are effective in how they are.
You can make the same argument that compared to US vehicles that aren’t heavy tanks, the Tiger II H is as slow as snail.
The whole 6.3-7.3 BR is a mess because of cold war 400mm pen heat launching vehicles mixed in with WW2 tanks. They really need to completely separate out these two categories of vehicles.
You said the T32E1 can’t go below 7.3 because no medium or heavy could frontally penetrate it. Now you’re saying penetration is irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant. The T32E1 favors armor, the Tiger II H favors firepower.
I’m not talking about the Marder III. Im talking about tanks like the M41a3, with HEATFS, APDS and smoke.
Is the M36 not a glass cannon? Is the M41A1 not a glass cannon? Even the M26 is now 6.7, so the US has no tank with armor and the ability to frontally pen the Tiger II H. The one that comes close is the T25, but its armor is subpar.
At least the Japanese STs get HEATFS.
The T32 sat at 7.0 for years, before HEATFS and APDS yet few people played it. Now all the sudden it’s some monster tank that just wipes the floor with anything that doesn’t have APFSDS.
It is interesting how so many tanks recently got buffs for moving up in BR but the T32s are the same as they’ve always been, despite moving up multiple times.