Lowering STUG III F into BR2 - What do Soviet and Allies think about that?

Suggestions
21

So you do actually have something against it - interesting, so you say turning Panzer IV F1 into another Panzer III N is not the solution either, well I am slowly getting out of ideas - 50mm of armor is not strong, don’t quite follow you on this but okay…

The only possible options simply are what existed in the real war… the only thing left I could imagine would be adding Panzer III L, but that one you wont like either, its pretty much like the premium Panzer III M, just without the side skirts.

22

The Germans also have a very good tank base in BR2, I can say that they are now the most powerful faction in terms of tanks in BR2, now they need a good SMG, not more powerful tanks.
50mm of armor is not strong, but just look at it, it is very difficult to destroy it from the front with the BR2 AT guns, if you look at it you will see what I mean.

23

Give free StuG III B, problem solved.

4 Likes
24

I dare to say T-60 is far harder to destroy than any Pz3 or Pz4 at BR1-2. At least from the front but side mounted engine of T-60 can be tricky too.

1 Like
25

Well, that thing can’t spam powerful HEs.

26

I agree, but they are too stingy.

1 Like
27

It is not plain worse, it has better reload, it is more agile.

And there’s not such performance disparity between them as between stug F and Pz IV H or Pz III N

1 Like
28

And Germans who can, have 30-50mm of flat armour at most.
So choose one: protection or firepower.

29

This was just an example!
So what do you think about pps42 and pps43? Should we send pps42 to BR1 because it is weaker? Or should we send sherman 2 to BR2 because it is weaker than m4a2?

30

In that case I want the M18 in BR2.

31

I find PPS 42 better than PPS43. But okay. (Both are overperforming in context of BR2 btw)

And as I have said, there’s not big performance between them anyway.

32

Played with stug for a few days in BR V few months ago. its gun fun and amazing to use even against Br 5 tanks but this tank deserves to be br2. its just not worthy to use compared to other choices even in br 3

1 Like
33

I don’t even know what BR it has, I never saw it.
But making it 1 BR lower or giving it better AP round seems fair. All TDs should get such treatment, especially ones without turrets.

Imo all BRs should have one tank / tank destroyer with anti-tank performance good enough to fight anything from the BR+1 at the cost of not great anti infantry performance.

1 Like
34

This is somewhere between BR2 and BR3, Germany doesn’t need more tanks in BR2, so I don’t think there’s a need to change it and upset the balance.

35

I agree with giving AP a better one!

1 Like
36

it’s BR4:
sehsehesh

1 Like
37

You are going way too off topic.

You can’t justify imbalance with another imbalance. It’s not relevant. This topic is about Stug F.

2 Likes
38

ofc germany doesn’t need another tank in br 2 but its not about need, its actually about making the stug usable, chances to see any stug in low or high br is like 1 out of 50 match and with simply lowering the its br this tank can be used widely in low br and we should really consider this tank is literally nerf to its user compared to other choices

1 Like
39

about that, if there is a soviet/usa tank that had same fate like stug then we should also lower their br’s to make it viable after all game needs diversity in matches

1 Like
40

i agree , since the kv1 jokezis have no place tier 4 , even the is1 next update will going to replace it , better armor and gun (will be downtiered to 4 ) , practily it will strength more the tier 2 anti armor for germany in my opinion , stug 3 f is capable to pen hull weak points , turret cheecks and 90mm weak point of it .
it will remove all sorry excuses thinking the german tier 2 is weak against kv1 jokezis (infact its not because in rare battle against that tank i manage to destroy it with puma on the turret front of jokezis )