It is better to strengthen anti-tank guns than to introduce tanks that do not exist

Archive Suggestions - Archive
1

I don’t think it is necessarily necessary to deploy tanks on both sides.
It would be better to be able to mount Experimental 105 mm tank gun on high-rank AT and engineering squads than to have Holi against M26 tanks on the Allied side.

1 Like
2

Unable to deploy tank that is strong enough to counter enemy tank is a huge disadvantage for a side. For example, current US br5.

At gun can only act as supplement, it cannot replace the role of the tank. Every country will most likely also get high rank at gun if Japan gets it.

1 Like
3

I’ve suggested before Heavy AA guns that can also act as AT guns, not to mention regular Heavy AT guns as well

4

battlerate scaling at guns and both sides having a tank that counters each other
japan needs something that can kill super pershing as easily as it can kill every other tank, and i dont think the super pershing will help allies in br 5, allies have lack of good equipment users.