I read it. These are my questions after reading it. You ignored them once again.
I’m just wondering, what exactly in my game statistics do you want to see?
Am I misunderstanding the word “before”?
70mm. 50mm only in the turret. PTRD penetrates 39mm of armor, it seems. How good it was when the USSR didn’t have the Bazooka M1. How good it was.
obviously I’m familiar with obviously I’m familiar with it. Big target, that’s the best description for it now.
I didn’t see it even when the Pz3N didn’t have cumulative shells. Oops. Looks like you’re wrong again.
In that case, you will shame me with this. But I’m afraid this will not happen.
You know that PZ3N have more front armor than KV1? and that 80 is impenetrable for KV1 and T-28E?
Sure, the turret is the weak point, but you will have more risk of “got snailed” more than on flat surface.
I would rather ignore KV1 if I can’t spawn IAR, but can’t delay a minute to kill PZ III N, because as long as PZ III N survives, team will got blown up in no second.
No one said other tanks cant also be used(?), its the fact that the Pz3 N is a flat upgrade to all those other tanks, with no downsides and every area where those tanks can do well, the Pz3 N does better.
I mean I have pointed out issues with all of those vs the other options in their trees, none of them have all the goods.
T28E (since the T28 is dogshit)
-Very good gun with middle of the line Reload
-Poor manoeuvrability
-Poor Depression
M8
-Good anti infantry gun
-Open top hence near useless. The only people I see defend these open topped tanks are those that have never used them. The fact any difference in elevation causes that tank to become a glass cannon (being generous) is a bit much.
Ho-I
-Good gun with decent reload
-No MG
Crusader
-Good AT ability but limited AP ability.
-Paper thin armour, though better than the paper armour on the T-28
Grant/Lee
-Casemate in disguise
-Long enough reload for the 75
-Unintuitive gameplay
All these tanks have drawbacks making them actually fun to play and to play against. The Pz 3 N in turn has a great gun, with a great reload with great manoeuvrability with good armour. To put it plainly, in all the other trees there is good reason to take the other tanks as well, it leads to a healthier and more diverse gameplay environment.
You made a point about the meta shifting, this is why I suggest swapping the Pz 3 N with the Stug 3 F, The Stug 3 F would be a great BR 3 counter allowing all the german mains to properly tackle the likes of the KV-1 as well. All while at the same time Allowing the Pz3 N to shine in its anti infantry role still better than the Pz 4 J which is another tank that has stagnated that selection of tanks at that BR.
The 3N only has 7 rounds of HEAT which dont always 1 shot and only have 80mm of pen which often is limiting you in where you can shoot the enemy (especially when uptiered) and some tanks are even nearly impervious to that HEAT. Once the HEAT is gone the tank has only enough pen to deal with BR 1 tanks in most cases. So it does have a down side and ammo reserves are not that extesive eighter for its ROF. Plus it uses the same layout as every othere tank until BR 4 meaning learning weakspots is trivialy easy.
But to be fair the rest of the gear germany has in BR 2 isnt that exeptional unlike the PPS, the P38 or even the M1 bazooka.
Is the 3N better than the othere factions tanks? Likely yes but this does not mean it must be nerfed if othere factions are still allowed to dominate in othere areas of the game unopposed.
If you read above I already agreed there yes, the M1 should be BR3 realistically. The P-38 is overhyped tbh, same with the IL-2, still good the both of them but not meta defining. I mean I use the P-40 because I think its better. Not to mention the MP40 is a really slept on weapon that is a better competitor to the PPS 42/43 than people think.
I also think everyone should be able to tailor the amount of ammo brought in a tank because some are screaming out for better ammo loadouts. I mean you only need maybe 10 rounds of AP in any tank, the rest I would take as HE.
However 7 rounds of decent HEAT (I still think it should have the more fitting later war shell and go to BR3) is enough for most situations, if you refuse to take a minute to rearm thats on you.
Though these points that are oranges still missed my main point, the Stug 3 F is a far better fit for BR 2 encouraging more diverse lineups in turn making it more interesting to play and play against. It is worth mentioning that the upgraded HEAT round would slice through most BR 4 and all BR3 vehicles easily enough.
Only 7 heat, is meh, conciddering that full production of K.Gr.Rot Pz was stopped, and 2nd grade Pzgr.39 was issued as alternative to the Gr.38 (for other tasks such as Bunker busting), is quite meh.
Not really, every tank has to re arm eventually, not to mention its not like your using the HEAT most of the time, its your lucky shell left in your back pocket for when it gets tough.
Yes, but as i sayed Some retained the Vorpanzer on the Turret.
The Rebuild (and some new, if stock of the Turmvorpanzer was still left) retained theirs.
Otherwise, duo to bombing, the production of the Turmvorpanzer (turret spaced armor) was stopped. Only Left over stock was used. Otherwise the N didnt have it on the turret. But kind of didnt need it anymore, as it changed roll from Tank on Tank combat to infantry support.
My personal mindset why I opened this topic to begin with, was that Panzer III N was more of a late war vehicle, seeing sideskirts in Moscow is a bit too much time traveling for my taste - especially when from a design perspective there are alternatives that fit the time period better.
And yes I know about Tiger II in Stalingrad, its just some thoughts I had.
