Well said
1 Like
APCR buff not so much
None of us here, myself included, have been around to see every ammunition type actually work well simultaneously. But I stand by my admittedly rough ideas on BRs regarding APCR buffs. Without unrealistic ammunition neutering, heavy tanks across the board lose their damage-sponginess, and as a result, their BRs will plummet until their armor can routinely stop incoming shots outright, while the tanks that see large buffs in killing power will move in the opposite direction.
American APCR was such a cut above the rest due to using such larger, heavier cores that it damn well should be terrifyingly strong. One example the game is outright missing is T102 APDS for the M103’s M58 cannon. 495mm pen at 1000 yards, vs 30deg-angled-from-vertical RHA. And technically, since the M103’s gun is a joint project with the British (Conqueror) and French, there is some argument their 120mm gun tanks could also get this round, especially considering the French are already using the same solid APBC.
2 Likes
I saw ME262 do the same, video, other people, and I even played it by myself
The total number of games played of ME262 are more than your entire German aircrafts, lol, and I do say they are good.
So did you check your record? Bad pilot or bad plane, which one? Seems AGM65s need buff LOL
Still, you haven’t played it, and you almost haven’t played any planes with big guns lmao
1 Like
Suebaisse with APCR??? Where do I sign up???
APDS, but yes. It’s already using the same APBC solid round, which has me suspecting its indeed the same cannon as the M103. That would imply the Surbaisse could also fire the M103’s HEATFS round. Both the M103 and thus also the AMX-50s are missing the APDS experimentally developed for the M103, which was hilariously strong.
Ah fuck I misread that part. Anyway. APDS and HEAT??? Sign me the fuck up.
1 Like
Panzer IVs have big funny gun, and virtually no survivability. My frigging Chaffee can lol pen then more often than not. Tiger 2s are pretty good, but so are the American and Russian heavies at the same BR.
Panther’s are decent, but more at range. Still not really good for CQC the way T34s and co are.
2 Likes
Oh no, decompression happened! Also, they’re not particularly good. They’re glass cannons with virtually no survivability. I’d take a Chaffe over a Pz IV in most situations.
In other words, you play them like somewhat slow-ish light tanks. In my experience they excel at that role. But so do Shermans, T-34s, and just about any other medium or mobile heavy like a KV-1 or Tiger 1.
The problem is, they do well in an uptier because they can “realistically fight” everything with their gun. But their survivability is horrendous, and their mobility aint all that. And many of the maps don’t lend themselves to their style of play, i.e long range engagements, instead being very CQC.
I’m currently spading Japan bit by bit. And German and Italian vehicles at least till 5.7 are among the easiest to fight and kill because their armor is bad and they have a lot of weakspots. You can front pen Tiger 1s in many situations if they get into close quarters. Which on some maps is unavoidable with many tanks.
But the Panzers are, just not all that IMHO. When playing Sweden who gets a Panzer 4 and T34 at the same BR. The latter is way more survivable and works very well on many GJN designed maps.
3 Likes
And yet following that same logic, wouldn’t the broadly-similar Japanese medium tanks be similarly-BR’ed then?
The Chi-Nu II is a worse Panzer IV F2 at a higher BR. The Chi-To & Chi-To Late are functionally equivalent to the Panzers IV G & H (in some respects the H actually has better armor than the Chi-To series due to all the funny HE rounds being stopped by the skirts). And the Chi-Ri II being punted up to 5.7 is frankly unbelievable, and would only make sense if it received its missing experimental rounds giving it Panther-esque gun penetration (180mm).
Problem is, much as is the case with some US rounds, the Japanese experimental “Type 4 Otsu” shell type only differs from the existing Type 4 Kou by an alternative shell hardening procedure, which a formulaic penetration system cannot really represent well. It’s the same case with the T32’s missing T50E1 shell, and of course the 90mm T33/T43 APBC shots.
1 Like
Oh I don’t disagree, many Japanese tanks are criminally overtiered. Especially the Chi-Nu. It doesn’t belong at 3.3. It’s basically a casemate with it’s turret traverse, has a similarly bad armor scheme to the Panzers and a crappy gun.
Chi-Nu 2 is actually a decent tank. It can hold it’s own but it could go down one step. The Chi-Ri at 5.7 is somewhat screwed because of uptiers.
I’d actually argue it does belong at 3.3, and that the likes of Shermans, T-34s, and Cromwells are what could use increasing. Because the gun is equally powerful as the Sherman 75.
Panzer 3 & 4s need to universally go up to where the Chi-Nu IIs and Chi-To series sit. The Chi-Ri II needs to come back down to 5.0 - a funny reload speed and highly-situational hull 37mm gun does not make up for a poorly armored “medium” tank which is literally larger than a Tiger II.
Most people skip over lower rank tanks so fast that they fail to realize lower ranks are just as badly overcompressed as higher ranks. Like, what are the majority of Italian and Japanese low tiers supposed to do against a B1 bis? Or a Matilda? We’ve got quite a few cases of things that some nations can’t pen the side of from 1.3-3.0. And then most of those things being beaten upside the head by M4A3 105s which for their purposes are heavy tanks.
1 Like
Much better pen and by far better post pen damage (28 g. vs 104/80g) . Chi-nu 2 is much better tank.
Again. They have much better fire power.
Really???
Why tanks with worse fire power and overall armor should stay in the same BR???
2 Likes
It’s a little better, but there isn’t much you are reliably killing with a Chi-Nu II that you aren’t also killing with a Panzer IV. Maybe a perfectly unangled Churchill VII at point blank. I do admit the postpen is better.
Both are similarly made of glass, and both die to anything frontally penetrating them. Panzer IVs are smaller than Chi-To tanks, and arguably they are more maneuverable thanks to the track extensions.
Okay I admit being wrong here, the skirts were doing that last time I was trying to hit them with derp HE from the KV-2.
Because Germany has been molly-coddled for many years, to the detriment of every other nation’s heavy armor in the 3.0-4.0 BR range. Their firepower is only barely worse, but you gain the advantages of a smaller, more maneuverable tank with faster reload speed.
Panzer IVs would be just fine at 4.0-4.7 BR for the F2, G, and H, respectively. The H sat at 4.3 for many years and nobody complained. Then it just started mysteriously dropping for not much reason.
1 Like
14 mm is a huge adventage.
Well but Chi-to are better armored than F2 and G. The Panzer 4 with 50 mm in the turret can be pened by almost anything and like the fire power is the other great adaventage over panzers.
Chi-to can be go down to 4.3 for sure but they are overall better tanks.
I dont know but under my own experience side skirts barely can protect you against nothing.
Thats was years ago. A lot of stuff and changes were added since then.
1 Like
I never said i used it,i said i could which wouldnt mean anything at all based on your previous response but whatever…you missed the whole point
Yeah whatever makes you happy and sleep better at night mate…you just want to leave a broken plane to abuse the living heck out of it
it literally has more survivbility than t-34. It has less armor for sure.
IS-2 is as good as Tiger 2? T34 is as good? What a joke…
they are uniquelly good at any situation. Good armor + good cannon + fast reload + good mobility for such armor
Armor = survivability
Now that Tigers 2 are down to 8.6 hp/t while IS-2 mod 1944 is still rocking 11.3 hp/t with a one shot overpressure cannon, an argument can be made that the IS-2 is at least as good as the Tiger II H.
Particular since it still has that incorrect lower plate.
(Not sure what it is with Gaijin and giving the IS-2 incorrect armor thickness at all times)
They are as good as any medium at their BR, with an emphasis on range due to gun and armor combination but less capable up close due to slower acceleration, below average turret traverse and almost unusable reverse gear.
So in the end they are just below average on the current 1x1km city map meta.
5 Likes