If the Panzer IV J could be at BR=3 (same penetration power, better HE, better armor, better turret traverse speed, coaxial MG, and more), shouldn’t the M10 also be at BR=3?
I kinda understand that the US right now doesn’t have enough vehicle (in term of power) to fill all BR brackets, but putting M10 at BR=3 would make it more attractive to use (at least when it’s down-tiered).
while at it:
StuG III A should be BR1 ( has same armor as Panzer III J but no turret or MG)
StuG III F should be BR2 ( has the same armor as Panzer III J but again no turret or MG)
Dicker Max should be BR3 ( has worse armor than Panzer III J and no turret or MG)
Jagdpanzer IV should be BR4 ( has same armor as Panther but no turret weak spot cuz having no turret)
Tiger E should be BR4 ( has worse armor and penetration than Panther)
SU-76M should be BR2 ( has no armor or MG)
SU 85M should be removed and replaced with regular SU 85 with less armor and then be put into BR3
IS 1 should be BR 4 ( useless in BR5)
IS 2 should be BR 4 ( same armor as Panther but overall somewhat worse gun )
SU 100 should be BR 4 ( no MG no turret )
M10 GMC should be BR 3 ( no coax MG and overall comparable to regular Sherman)
M18 GMC should be BR 3 ( no armor at all )
M4A2 (76) W should be BR 4 ( practically the same vehicle as M4A1 (76) W)
Sherman IC Firefly should be BR 4 ( performs the same as 76mm Shermans)
Chi-Nu should be BR 3 ( has the same armor as Panzer III J)
Na-To should be BR 3 ( has no armor no turret and no MG)
I’d rather have the Panzer IV J go up to BR4 tbh.
But you have a good point. atm turretless and open-turret tanks often draw the short end of the stick in general because their BR is mostly only determined by their gun.
agreed.
the m10 should be a br 3.
dunno why it’s 4…
even jap vehicles at tier 3 and 2 can pen the m10.
Because it has basically the same gun as US BR5 tanks lmao.
not really
there are 4 cannons.
and as far as it goes, tanks get categorized either for the gun and the armor.
but just like in the kv1 cases, it does have good armor, but somewhat a worse gun.
same as panzer IV Js bvut the opposite. which both are III.
yet, the H is considered a br 4.
or is 1 considered a br 5.
as much we can point out funny inconsistensies.
m10 should defo be a br 3. ( for both the armor, and open top thingies )
indeed makes Panzer IV F2 pointless.
if post pen damage on Panzer IV would be fixed I can see it go into BR IV since it already can penetrate many max BR vehicles.
Panzer IV F2 should fight against early T34s.
Also to make it more interesting, Panzer IV H could get turret track armor by default and be placed into BR IV easily.
let me reprhase it and put it better,
the " counter part " of germans, would be, and arguably can be, the stug III F.
which, it’s a br III. or, somewhat similar to the japanese ( that i’m missing it’s name ) which it’s a case mate. all of them have in common a good gun, but not ideal armor. ( after all, tank destroyers ).
i don’t see why the m10 should be a tier IV.
Yes, it does.
All current american BR5 tanks should be BR4 (and m10 should be BR3). BR5 tansk should be Jackson, Perishings, jumbo with 76, T29, super hellcat…
There’s no reason why should classic Shermans with be considered BR5 tanks, lmao. There’s no way they are better than T-34/85 or Panthers, they should be at least on the same BR.
well the M10 at least has a 50 cal.
the Stug III F has nothing but its canon that performs very bad anyways
why would anybody use a jackson in BR 5 tho?
yes they do
unlike the m10, they do have coax and somewhat actual armor.
+, closed top.
which can deal with german tanks. but would be overkill for the japs.
the m10… on the other hand.
it would be like a panzer IV F2 against is 1s, 2s and t34-85s.
it can get the job done, but it’s not their actual supposedly br to be somewhat par on par.
Classic progression reasons.
Because it would first BR5 tank which is objectively better than previous BR4 tanks.
they already perform somewhat worse than Panthers, whats the point in having them in BR5?
So why tf are Panthers and T-34/85 BR4 tanks? Are Shermans with 76 better or what?
Jokes on you.
you have to expose your head for it. to use it
and no. it’s not a 50 cal. looks like one, but it’s not able to pen pumas and what not.
is it really that worthed?
debatable.
the m10 and stugs are essentially the same thing, ( that is, being tank destroyer ) being fair against each other. yet have smaller differences. with different weakspots as one is open top, and the other is not.
should a lmg rise it’s br?
you’re nuts if you think that.
p.s. stug is actually great.
well progression vehicles means they will be never used again when you unlock better stuff - which I think is sad, balance wise they have about the same armor as regular shermans, but having no coax and being open top.
I don’t see it performing good enough to justify using them over 76 Shermans.
yes they are
( given their reload speed, anti infantry capabilities, their HE rounds, etc )
when it comes to tanks, armor isn’t everything.
otherwise you would see more jagdpanthers, more jumbos, more su 85s, more is 2s, more is 1s etc.
i mean, tier IV and Vs are tipically stronger tanks
the m10… it’s… alright.
which should fall under the tier III. not IV.
Jackson could be easily BR4, I’ve just made it according to current TD trend.
There’s no reason to play JP IV with short 7,5cm gun on BR4 and so…
Wut? You’re dead serious, huh?