I can already hear you screaming “That’s stupid, how could you possibly justify it.” But I assure you the reasoning is quite sound. You see, although the 76s have much more pen their HE is worse (around 50% less effective as proven by several army tests, and yes this is shown in game). Although in games like war thunder it is irrelevant in enlisted it is not. Just like in the real war the majority of engagements are against infantry. This gives the 75 a very real advantage over the 76 in the majority of engagements it will be fighting in, with the 76 only having the advantage in much rarer tank on tank engagements. In WW2 this was actually a major deal with units almost always making sure that 76s always supplemented 75s instead of replacing or outnumbering them. In fact some units even refused to take 76s because of their worse anti-infantry performance, which as stated was the main purpose of the tank! I have always been a fan of having players having to make the same choices they did during the war. In this case choosing if they want enhanced performance against infantry or extra insurance against heavy tanks by being able to take them on frontally without having to flank. Besides I don’t think shermans have any place being at the same BR as Panthers and Tiger which have much more powerful guns and much higher armor. Even having to face King Tigers at times!
A few caviats.
This would not suggest moving the Jumbo 76 down to BR3 but it would suggest moving it to the same BR as the other Jumbo at BR4.
Some could argue that the HVAP on the M4A2 76 makes it deserve a higher BR but I would argue that:
-1. that did not stop it from being put at the same BR as the M4A1 76.
-2.This is still just increased AT performance and does not overrule the crux of my argument which is anti infantry preformance.
-3.The Tiger and Panther at BR4 for have much more pen, and higher HE filler.
No, this should not also apply to the T34/85 as its 85mm gun fires much better HE rounds than its previous iterations. Significantly increasing anti infantry performance instead of reducing it.
If I havent convinced convinced you with my argument than please tell me why.
Good question!
Actually it doesn’t fit into my argument. My argument for downtearing the 76s is that they are worse at anti infantry than the 75s and therefore a sidegrade. The caliope is just an upgrade on the normal 75. In fact all the rockets make it much, much better at anti infantry, it’s the same thing with the T34/85 (except thats it is a mix of AT and AI compared to the caliope that is just very good at AI. So according to my logic in this argument the caliope should stay at Br4.
Sorry but no. My whole thesis is that it deserves to go down because of its worse HE performance. After a look at the stats the Firefly has HE on par with the 75 so therefore it should stay at BR4. In terms of this argument at least.
Maaaybe M4A1 76mm alone with APCR taken out but i’m actually against the M4A2 76mm and Jumbo sherman with 76mm having their BR lowered.
My reasoning for this, is that M4A1 sherman has a flawed protection and lower mobility compared to M4A2 sherman. It being on BR 3 wouldn’t cause too much problem when BR 2 tank would faces M4A1 with 76mm but M4A2 is a different story because not only the hull armor is much better protected but the turret is also over 80mm thickness. With 75mm M4A2 sherman you may aim for the weakpoint on the turret(which, already very protective tank by the way, i don’t think you can argue that T-34 is a better tank than M4A2 both in protection and firepower)but 76mm M4A2 doesn’t have this weakpoint thus making BR 2 tanks would really struggle to penetrate it unless it’s specialized TD like Marder 3. This means that not only we have KV-1 on BR 3 but also M4A2 76mm sherman on BR 3 that’s basically impenetrable for the majority of BR 2 tanks. Also, if it becomes BR 3 then M4A2 76mm is undeniably the best BR 3 tank in the game period. Even with weaker HE it’s not even close in terms of both protection and mobility compared to other BR 3 tanks in the game. Even when it’s uptiered to BR 4 it would hold it’s own unlike T-34 with 76mm or Panzer 4. I don’t think that Panzer 4 H and T-34 can keep up.
As for the Jumbo Sherman 76mm, honestly i think it’s like 4.5 BR tank which clearly not as good as other BR 5 tanks such as M26 or Tiger 2 but after i thought about it a bit, if it’s placed on BR 4 i think it would causes some imbalance. The regular jumbo sherman is already very protected, both Panther and Tiger 1 has to aim for the weakspot unless it’s very close range IIRC. in exchange, 75mm gun is suck at killing other BR 4 tanks(at least german ones, RIP for japanese tanks). Giving it 76mm gun suddenly removes this penalty and make it clearly a better tank than Panther or Tiger 1. Both will struggle to kill Jumbo with 76mm but Jumbo with 76mm will have much easier time to kill them obviously.
Another point is that M10 and M18 will become obsolete. They are clearly a better vehicles than the usual BR 2 TD we have in the game so them being on BR 3 makes sense but it wouldn’t make sense if M4A2 76mm becomes BR 3 as well.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a long response.
I can agree with the Jumbo point I disagree with the M4A2 76 one. Mainly for the reason that the US M4A2 75 is at BR3. The only diference is the gun and as I said before the 76 is a sidegrade not an upgrade. Also both japans and Germanys main tanks at that BR can pen it. Its not realy fair to say
The jumbo has some crazy spaced armor thing going on along with it being angled. I dont think the 88 can pen the Jumbos upper front place anywhere but the MG port. Nor can the Jumbo to the Tiger or Panther.
IIRC, 75mm M4A2 sherman and 76mm M4A2 have a different protection on the hull in Enlisted. 76mm one has a better protection, more akin to that of 105mm M4A3 sherman has.