I would totally agree that the MP18 should not be a level 2. I think it is an awful gun and I wasted money buying the squad which I will never use. I would rate it at BR 0.25.
What I would like to see is the DEV’s take the M1918 level 1 German semi auto and put it into the tech tree. It is not a game changing gun, but it is a very good semi auto at level 1 and is just wasting space sitting as a BP gun. I would also love to see them take the S&M semi auto from the BP which is a level 2 gun and move it to the tech tree. In my view it is far superior to the M1 carbine and is also not going to be game changing, but an improvement over the tech tree gun. I would then move the M1 to level 1. Of course, I would also love to see them take the Browning 1918 and move it to level 2 as their are two other BAR’s at level 3 plus the WAR which are better. Again, not going to be game changing, but I think a better gun then the Brits machine guns.
good list, finally someone who properly understands the stug powerlevels relative to other german tanks.
only point i would change is the puma for BR1: its already one of the strongest br2 tanks, thanks to its high penetration long cannon (deals nicely with T34/KV1 when uptiered to BR3) & it has a fast firing MG42 instead of the normal slow ass MG34 on other tanks.
the luftfaust overall is so weak, it would make more sense to put it down to br2, as there it can at least blow up some weakly armored tank from the side. as in real life, it will never actually hit a plane and be used against trucks/armored cars instead.
I do understand its limited usefulness in higher BRs given it is a TD without a turret and only HE for anti infantry, however taking into account it could face BR 1-3, it would be untouchable by enemy armor unless same BR reduction is done for M10/M18 and SU-85.
No BR 1 or 2 can touch it without flanking and same applies even to most BR 3 tanks. Given the limited Anti-infantry capabilities, yet its good armor, most users would out of sheer effectivness just greyzone camp and being honest, I do not think that is something to popularize.
Current balance for low BR is that a 1 BR difference tanks can still fight evenly when facing each other frontally. T28E against Pz.4 J, Pz. 3N against M4A2, Grant/Crusader againt Pz.4J. Plus not even infantry could deal with a greyzone camping Jagdpanzer IV since neither 75 or 57 can kill it and nor can handheld AT. So unless a plane kills such a person, they could spam HE and kill tanks without any possible interferance since infantry can not touch them in greyzone.
How important are machineguns for greyzone (or not) camping?
Because, frankly, these turretless tank destroyers/assault guns are more vulnerable.
I think these vehicles would be less effective at greyzone camping than the turreted variants, which makes it less of an issue.
But assuming we go with your suggestions… What is the point of these TDs/AGs, if they are clearly inferior to turreted vehicles in quite so many ways?
If anything, having them be unlocked earlier would be their saving grace.
Machineguns for greyzone camping are not that important. They serve as a tool for taking out specific targets like AT. However if I am not mistaken, most TDs even have a faster reload rate than regular tanks to make up for not being as flexible, so your main gun makes up for not having MG by shooting faster.
Being turreted or not when lobbing HE into a building or an area from 100 - 200 meters does not make much of a difference the most amount you have to turn is 5 -10 degrees at most to maintain coverage. That is not enough to expose yourself to potential side shot so most of the time you will be able to face any opponent frontally and since you would ideally stay in greyzone, being outflanked completely is not really a possibility.
In close combat yes, infantry and flanking can kill them easily, however at range they are hard to deal with and a Jagdpanzer IV would be untouchable at BR 1-3. Even most BR 3 tanks can not go through the front of Jagdpanzer IV up close. Sure you can move the Stugs, I agree with those, but not Jagdpanzer.
Frankly, none. They do not fit into this game unless you use them in greyzone, where they can only be engaged frontally and can fire from longer ranges. However the main issue is all tanks using such tactic can be killed by ground forces using built AT or their own tanks. Stugs can be killed, but not Jagdpanzer, that thing is just too armored for BR I-III. So leave that tank at BR IV, unless you wish for other TDs to be moved into BR III as well.
There is a version with the same gun as the Pz4 - which is why it has the same penetration - this is usually called the JgPz-IV/48, and IIRC comes from the old Normandy Campaign
And there is a version with the same gun as the Panther… and is usually written asn the JgPz-IV/70 - it comes from the Berlin campaign. There is a weaker variant of this the JgPz-IV/70A which retains the vertyical portion of the Pz-IV front hull, which has very weak armour.
As for Stugs and JgdPz 4 not having MG’s - certainly an issue for hte Stug, but the JgPz-IV’s both have a hull machinegun which is useable by switching to the machinegunner position.
As a counter they also both have lower silhouettes and are easier to hide - much better defensive equipment than the tanks… which is what they were meant for.
The Stug-3G and both “normal” JgPz-IV’s have massively stronger armour than Pz-IV’s, and any suggestion they should be BR3 is just stupid.
You are correct, I was basing my naming off the “ordnance stats” sheet on the enlisted resource document. There is only one tank listed as a “jagdpanzer 4” on there, the other jagdpanzer 4s are listed as Panzer IV/70(A) and (V). The tank is in a weird spot between BR 3 and 4. It really has no place in BR4, just like the Panzer 4H.
The JgPz-IV/48 is considerably stronger than all the Pz-IV’s due to much, MUCH better front armour and lower silhouette.
IMO it is fine at BR4 - the front armour is stronger than a Tiger!!
The Pz-IVJ is itself definitely not BR4 - if it still is - I never used it because since the merge - spaded it before during the campaigns, and why would you use it at all now since it is simply inferior to the H?
Why not have the weaker one at BR 3 then? I’m still going to argue that it’s useless compared to a tank with a rotating turret and top mounted MG. Would it really matter if it’s facing BR 2 players when it can be destroyed by any plane or explosive pack?
Fair enough, its just that the armor alone is not enough to ever have a use-case for this Jagdpanzer 4 in br4 when the other options are significantly better. I have only seen 1 used EVER, and that was someone using the event one in berlin years ago. At BR4 it will remain as an obscure and never seen tank, at BR3 it has the potential to be unkillable from the front. There is no winning.
Since it has the same pen as the Pz4J, at BR3 players have the option of a turreted tank (Pz4J) with weak armor (better against infantry) or a casemate tank (Jagdpanzer4) with strong armor (better against tanks). I think its biggest threat would be as a very difficult to dislodge grey zone camper.
Sure - but that isn’t a good argument for lowering it to a BR where it will be spammed because it is massively better than everything else!
It is a victim of the BR system - which is simply incapable of subtlety or any good at putting anything other than the most basic equipment into decent historical contexts.