adding more tanks isn’t even the solution, the PzIII with long l60 should be able to take out t34* consistently, which it cant. The T34s armor is incredibly misrepresented.
1 Like
Jagdpanzer I’s aren’t going to do much with their… 47?-50 mm guns (if panzer III’s with their 50 mm’s can’t do it),
Marders with 75 mm guns (2 of them in Warthunder) should be able to take them out.
StuG III F’s with 75 mm as well.
Even though, these tanks… are more clumsy, they are turretless tank destroyers and assault guns; but at least they would be an option, but really, they’ll need a self-defense option (at the very least that B button allowing to use tanker’s personal weapon to engage infantry).
It’s so broken.
In War Thunder, a Panzer 4 F2/G/H/J can defeat T-34-85 armor from 1100m on UFP. In this game, it can ricochet panther rounds 50/50 and the turret basically takes no post-pen, so requires crew sniping. Also tanks like Panther don’t have volumetric (they do in WT) so turret armor is useless for Panther.
Than, in Moscow, there is no counter at all , not a single mid/long 75mm.
Also to add, in WT you can choose ammo, so you can fire APCR or HEAT as you wish, short 75mm have HEAT that should auto pen UFP of T-34 but have bad ballistics.
indeed, I keep ranting how increadibly useless the Panther is in Enlisted, even tho it should more or less take out a T34 with maximum 2 hits, it makes zero sense that a 180mm pen gun should bounce on a T34 with its <100mm effective armor
1 Like
Several of the campaigns are this way, with one side having a clear advantage in high-level tank battles. It is supposed to be asymmetric. Situation is basically reversed with the Tiger on Berlin, for example. Whether it’s too much, or if there’s enough counterbalance elsewhere to make up for it, that’s a complicated issue.
The tiger is good on Berlin but you need to be level 3000, a t-34-85 has just as good AOE farming and the IS2 clears 5 rooms in 1 hit through walls.
Tanks should never be that hard to kill in this game. It’s awful for balance if you need to be high level to deal with something the other team fields.
This isn’t an RPG where you should expect levels to decide a fight before it starts.
The Pacific did it right, the best tanks in that campaign are still very killable by anything.
1 Like
the best tanks on pacific are premium only, and the rest are useless lol
you just dont like tanks
1 Like
Tiger II is pretty bad, T34 one hit kills it on the turret, Tiger I has a smaller effective turret hitbox and is superior.
I dont agree with your point,
Tunisia both sides get equal tanks- Sherman and Panzer IV
Normandy is somewhat in favour to Germany- Tiger vs Sherman 76
→ also Panther is inferior to the tiger which makes no sense, and Firefly shouldn’t be only premium.
Berlin is pretty equal, tho the T34 is superior to panzer IV and even Panther ( which makes no sense)
Stalingrad yea Panzer IV and Stug vs KV1 and T34, more or less balanced, even tho T34 has unhistorical strong armor.
only Moscow is completely busted right now Panzer III L60 cant fight a T34, even tho it should.
The greyhound is arguably worse than the Stuarts and the Chi-Ha is still vulnerable when it isn’t directly hull-down. It’s still not that powerful.
You are wrong. Tiger II is far stronger than I. Specifically because it is almost invulnerable to infantry and planes, unless they hit you in exactly the right spot. As for tank v tank, it largely depends on who sees who first, both sides have kill power in that campaign.
I do not see Berlin as equal at all in terms of tanks. It’s not uncommon for the Allied side to completely stop spawning their own, if one of the tigers gets a good position. But Tiger I is a relatively balanced tank, while the Tiger II is highly specialized - Meaning there are a couple positions you can park to be almost untouchable. Locks down the whole map until the 200th infantry guy gets lucky with his AT weapons.
For some reason, on Tunisia, the Grant seems superior to the other allied options. Sherman looks way better on paper, but I have much more trouble getting good hits on Grants. And when I do pen them, they almost always are able to return fire. I do think it’s balanced though, the PZIV is good too.
I dunno much on Normandy, but my instinct tells me tiger is way better than sherman, yea
Moscow has been busted for a while now, they keep adding stuff that completely changes the balance. Hated how they release an AR just as I finish leveling my THIRD drum fed SMG and SECOND T28. I like the T28 for the machinegun+HE spam and point rush potential (large crew), and that feels balanced ish cuz I can die… But I haven’t spent much time with the T34.
Stalingrad idk, didn’t play
They are powerful enough to invalidate non-premium tanks as good options. The cannon on US tanks is less relevant on Pacific because every Japanese vehicle is paper, except the premiums which get both firepower and armor. Pacific is a campaign where you cannot use tanks as a free player (unless you are ok with playing US and losing when opponents pay real money for bigger gun).
Panther, Tiger, and Tiger II all get one hit killed by the allied starting tank when hit at the turret.
Panther and Tiger II have a very simple to hit turret hitbox, the Tiger I however has some weird irregularities on its surface that allow shots to bounce rather often.
Tiger II reloads slower than the Tiger I.
The only benefit I can see for the Tiger II is higher pen to fight the IS and SU tanks, thats it.
I agree with you regarding the grant tho, its pretty great for the allied side, however mostly because italian tanks are completely worthless, once you get german tanks hitting the driver view port will take out grants even at longer ranges reliably
also, its sometimes difficult to discuss these things, the devs seem to rebalance tanks from time to time without telling anyone, ninja patches are a real thing in this game.
1 Like