I dont own the su 76 but i noticed that it has absurdly high br. The su 76 only has an long 76mm cannon and no mg. The tank is open top making it vulnerable against infantry. It has bad armour and it serves no purpose in t3 where it gets outmatched by t34s an kv 1. The bt7a is in t1 with same cannon and 2 mgs. Please lower the br of su 76 in t1.
5 Likes
For info The progression bt7 have a 40mm cannon, the event bt7a is the one op referr have a 76mm
3 Likes
BR1 may be too low but br3 is absurde. Imagine fighting tiger in this coffin.
9 Likes
yeah basically all tank-destroyers/self-propelled gun are somehow overtiered. Stuff like M10, Jagdpanzer, SU-85, upcoming Na-To should get lower BR.
11 Likes
I think br 1 would be fine. The tank would trade good armour, crew survivability, and mg for better cannon. I would use t70 rather than the su 76 due to the lack of mg
2 Likes
and stug should be t2
1 Like
There’s no real difference between BR 1 and BR 2. And the decision to put this vehicle only to low BR queue is good one.
9 Likes
I assume we will have BR±1 one day. In this scenario BR2 seems ok.
7 Likes
Imagine if we got ±1-0 with half of team limit for top tier and 5th divided into 5 and 6. I already have fightbacks for the Soviets against Germans as online and ticket balance go smoother, so little fixes will make it near perfect (if only they added features like bipods and stable HE)
3 Likes
And yet that’s exactly what it was actually used for - fighting off Tigers/Panthers and PzIVs. They didn’t make an appearance till '43 and if I recall correctly the Battle of Kursk is where they may have seen their debut 
The real issue with this vehicles BR is not other vehicles but its inability to defend itself against INF AT spam, without any MGs - No BR adjustment will fix that.
I highly doubt a lightly armoured vehicle with 76mm gun was meant to fight tigers. I’m sure it did though.
You do realise, that these were effectively used as mobile AT fronts firing from concealed positions, not charging across the battlespace WT style right ?
They were very effective with the 76mm gun against most of the German tanks, noting that they were built on chassis of obsolete AVs - easy to maintain and relatively reliable.
1 Like
I focused on head on engagements like we have in the game. Brain rot.
1 Like
It could work the same way if there were not too many INF AT weapons and you had to use Engineers or AT teams to build AT guns to combat tanks.
This vehicle has the adv of mobility over a constructed AT gun, so if it could “try to ambush” from a flank or an oblique position it could work.
The issue ofcourse is infantry rushes and Inf AT spam, being open topped its also vulnerable to air ofcourse which is not helped by the fact that the maps are not designed to permit this style of play. They work much better in WT, when they are used to snipe from relative cover and more importantly greater ranges.
1 Like
Probably all Tank Destroyers are far too high.
1 Like
Totally. Why the hell is su-85 at t5?
2 Likes
probably because it only made its appearance towards the end of the war - so the Berlin map is the only place they could stick it in.
This is the problem with a WT tech tree approach to Enlisted, which instantly screwed up all vehicle and weapon balance and allowed a bunch of quasi educated individuals to make up their own weapon/vehicle balancing set ups, rather than just leaving everything as historically accurate as possible and managing any assymetry in a clever way… like creating extended campaigns… oh wait we had that…
Su-85 entered service in 1943. If t34 85 can be in t4 so should su-85
1 Like
like I said, arbitrary decisions for arbitrary weapon / equipment dispersion’s sake - no logic
1 Like
I mean a Panzer III J is a lot worse than a Panzer III N.