This is APC -
This is a “tank” -
I think the suggestion is clear. Make this vehicle an APC, too. Otherwise it looks like a complete injustice.
Battle rating can be left unchanged.
This is a “tank” -
I think the suggestion is clear. Make this vehicle an APC, too. Otherwise it looks like a complete injustice.
5 Likes
Wrong
Sd.Kfz 251/9 is an IFV
This isnt a tank, Type 5 Na-To is a SPG.
1 Like
How it’s called irl I don’t need to talk about it. I’m talking about how Mr. developers present these vehicles in this game.
And considering that both could carry infantry, I don’t see any problem to make them the same class.
There’s plenty of room there for benches, especially considering the announcement of the new APCs only has 4 men in the squad.
2 Likes
Maybe apc crew don’t have gunner and loader perk
The Na-To is based on an artillery tractor hull which WAS used as an APC iirc, but obviously the giant 75mm rounds leave little room for infantry. The short 75 has much more room for infantry because the 75mm rounds it uses are very small in comparison.
2 Likes
Just because you can doesn’t mean that it’s an APC.
3 Likes
That’s the point, all the room occupied by soldier got removed for gun and ammo…
1 Like
Na-To is a tank.
M3 MGMC is a tank.
And neither of them can tank a single shot.
They don’t serve the same purpose that tanks do (or should, once we fix greyzone camping), in fact even less so than SPGs.
So while there may be pros and cons to splitting SPGs off from tanks, the M3 and Na-To HAVE to be removed from the vehicle category altogether and into APC. They can’t fill the role of actual tanks at the same tier (e.g. A13 MkII), the Na-To honestly struggles to compete with the Ho-Ni I from BRII.
Having them serve as a spawn point will make them more desirable on your team, and the main advantage here is obviously that they don’t block the slot for an actual tank.
Sd.Kfz 251/9 is a tank.
in which universe lol
it’s an spg
That’s what we mean.
spg =/= tank
which, as far as it goes for the stummel, at br III, won’t pen everything that faces.
on the other hand, the… whatever japanese box that is, the cannon will kill everything
( granted, not a huge fan of tanks or spg being tanks, but makes sense for the stummel )
1 Like
In our game, it takes up his slot, that’s why we say tank
Yes, that’s what I was hinting at. It’s a discussion of its own but placing SPGs and tanks in the “vehicle” category together can also be disputed. Facing 2 Semoventes or 2 Pz III is an entirely different match.
But these literal APCs with a better gun don’t fill either of the roles. (The Na-To has too thin a front plating to greyzone-camp securely, unlike most SPGs who can pull it off decently, as much as the cannon may be decent)
yes
but… spg shouldn’t be apc.
with that being said, i can see the exception for the stummel. because it’s an afv too.
doesn’t help my case i suppose my irl name and profile picture, but, APCs with guns are still glass cannons that the majority will park, and forget about it ( as far as i’m seeing )
with the stummel, being a br III vehicle, you’re gonna have an hard time penning stuff that you will theoretically be putted up against ( unless low brs, but still, it’s a glass cannon )
on the other hand, japan spg it’s… quite overkill to be an apc.
considering it’s gun.
and… well, it’s quite slow too.
the only way i could see it to be an apc, is to get the deaweaponized varient.
as it goes for the stummel though, it’s not gonna be problematic to the same extent just because of it’s gun.
i’d think.
2 Likes