That’s an opinion, not a fact. I can’t argue that they’re different, that would be foolish, or by how much they differ, because that’s quantifiable. “Too Much” is a subjective opinion.
Nothing concrete, but there’s this
It’s wikipedia, but it disagrees with both War Thunder and Enlisted on those armor values, and if they changed it so the thickest armor on the front was 37mm, with the slope it would still be good, but you could still pen it with most german tank guns if you play it right.
You’re right here. It’s only as good as it is, though, because of problems with the damage model. The armor isn’t that good, or shouldn’t be, and it’s only got two crew. If it’s not a damage model issue it’s a knowledge issue, not knowing where to shoot the T60 to delete the crew. I dunno.
This is balanced.
Agreed. Being the best against infantry, I’m pretty ok with it not being great at killing tanks, I’d say this is balanced as is.
Yeah, T50 is a bit of a beast right now because it has the same gun as earlier tanks and way better armor. Like I said, if they reduced that armor to (as best as I can currently tell) historical levels it would be much closer to balanced.
I never said the Soviets were worse than Axis in Moscow as a blanket statement. I pointed out where each side has an advantage and pointed out where adjustments could be made (to the soviets) to bring the campaign closer to balance (it’s already the best balanced campaign tbh). We disagree on the details, but your premise is basically sound.
Then it’s bad faith to demand more from your opponent than you’re willing to do yourself. What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence. If all you ever do is disagree with our points and supporting arguments while shouting your opinion without providing your reasoning, you’re just being loud in the hopes we’ll give up arguing. Good luck.