I experienced in a row of games the Pz II can’t pentrade his russian counterpart T-60. While the T-60 can do this easily on Pz II. Was using AP ammo of course but the resulting dmg is damn low. Even i aim the chassis between the tracks. The T-60 has amour in mm around 35/15/25 (frontal/side/heck). And the 20mm canon of the Pz II is absolutly able to penetrade the T-60. Checked this in the damage analyser in WT as well. Some less spots are may harder to pentrade because angle. But the typical weakspots and the sides of the tower itself are easy to go through.
And its also known what the 20mm gun can to against such light armour. May i miss something but it would be cool to balance this :3
Btw why but the PzII C. in battles of moscow? I mind historical was the Pz II F. in use at this time. But may this has balance reasons too…
Yeah even because of this the Pz II can penetrade up to 46mm (my inbformation says 36mm but anyway) like you said, its should be able to penetrade side chassis or turret from aside. Remember T- 60 has 35/15/25.
We currently have the Pz2C Early, with 20mm frontal armor. During CBT, we had the Pz2C Late, with 30mm frontal armor. The T-60 penetrates a max of 27m. With the thicker frontal armor, the Pz2 was kekking on the T-60 as hard as they now do vice versa. There is nothing in between. Either the T-60 suffers against everything, or the Pz2 suffers against the T-60, while the T-60 suffers against everything else.
So, why did it need adjusting in favour of the Soviets then? If someone has to suffer, because there is no other choice, then why was it changed? I think we all know the answer.
T-60 already suffers to everything except the Pz2 and Pz3B rn. The Pz2 only suffers against the T-60 rn. It’s actually more balanced this way, stupid it may be.
My point is this, if someone has to suffer - as you say - and one side is already doing the suffering, then why change it? The Panzer II was stealth nerfed during the CBT, with no warning or explanation, and now we have this weird situation where one starter tank is flat out better than the other (yet the Puma is somehow not okay for… reasons).
I genuinely feel sorry for Panzer II players when I encounter them, they just don’t stand a chance against someone who - like me - knows what they’re doing with it. It’s just not a contest, unless I deliberately try and get myself killed.
Did they? Are you sure about that? Because as someone who hasn’t even got any other Soviet tanks yet, I’m certainly not experiencing any suffering at the moment. Perhaps a week or two down the road, when most of the community has ditched their Panzer IIs (if they stick around that long), then it will become apparent.
Yes, I know about those. What I’m saying, is that the T-60 is so good versus Panzer IIs and the first Panzer III, that Soviet tankers really don’t require anything else until better tanks show up.
Edit: The BT-7 is also great, but you have to be a lot more careful with it.
The T-60 is only any good in a vacuum. You’re generally better off with a T-26 for the 45mm despite it getting instakilled by any Panzer II who looks at you.