You? Valid points? Lol
You should try it sometime, I get logic isn’t your strong suit though
1 Like
bro doesn’t understand what a parrot is in the context of the enlisted forum…
1 Like
I wish no will have to understand that context in the future. A vain wish, I know.
2 Likes
No, I just think you have a habit of bullying newbies; judging from the way you talk, you always have. If you insist on downgrading Achilles to Tier 3, then the 17-pounder gun must also be nerfed, otherwise you can win on territory you control without even driving the tank destroyer out of the spawn point.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
more barks and i will close the post
Close and forward the post. Majority have already spoken and the usual suspects refuse to listen to logic.
1 Like
So your objective with that pointless bickering was to get a mod to interject so you can say “just forward it then”… seems pretty childish.
Yeah sure man, that was totally my objective…. if that’s what you got out of that…… 
I said forward it because it’s literally a majority vote and the people who are arguing against it have 0 logic and weak arguments to why it shouldn’t move.
But yeah sure, that’s childish 
1 Like
You’re fighting for your life in the comments and your best argument is console wars only child here is you kiddo.
1 Like
Using such logic Stug3F and Marder 3 shouldn’t be br2 because they have the gun that can penetrate the frontal armor of Sherman and T-34. If Germany can have tank destroyer with high penetration that have less br, why Allies can’t?
1 Like
Allied tank destroyers were modified from medium tanks, while Marder tank destroyers and assault guns were modified from light tanks. The two are completely different. Moreover, American tank destroyers have heavy machine guns and mobility. Do the German tank destroyers you mentioned have these two features?
Stug3F was using Panzer3 hull which is a medium tank.
The heavy machine gun that has mediocre damage and requires you to expose your commander.
True for hellcat but we are talking about Achilles here.
Is stug 3f open top and use solid shot?
2 Likes
Was just reading the shitshow above, and saw this which I want to put a word in on.
Both designs were focused on countering Heavy Armour as the short 75 had no issue dealing with German Mediums.
It also has to be noted both designs were absolutely intermediate designs meant as stop gap solutions. Frankly in US doctrine most things with the GMC designation tend to be stopgap solutions.
Youll need to explain the logic there, is it the implication that vehicles that have a high skill requirement, which can punish lazy or oblivious plays, are OP?
Or are you the type of person who cant understand why the Stug 3F should be BR2 while the Pz 4’s with the long barrelled 75’s are BR3?
1 Like
You can’t explain logic to him. He constantly contradicts himself in his arguments too.
1 Like
The M10 is still a very bad gun platform for Enlisted.
Tank destroyers should follow the same doctrine they have in War Thunder: The lack of a turret should be compensated by placing better guns on lower BRs. And a lack of mobility should also be compensated by frontal armor.
It’s not even that you’d have much use for a high penetration gun on BR 3. It really only shines when you would play uptiered in order to be able to deal with Tigers and Panthers. Otherwise it’s still the highly questionable tank no one uses on BR 3. Plus you have the Firefly on BR 4, which can do everything the Achilles can, but better.
3 Likes
(1) The early Panzer III tanks used a short-barreled 37mm gun, so it was classified as a light tank, not a medium tank. (2) Also, German tank destroyers did not have machine guns, while American tank destroyers did. So this is not a matter of weapon performance, but rather a matter of whether or not they had them. (3) The British Achilles’ heel destroyer had a 17-pounder gun that destroyed the Panther, which is the key point. (4) Although the early StuG III Ausf. F had the long-barreled gun of the Panzer IV, its armor was comparable to that of the early Panzer IV, and it did not have a turret or machine gun. This is a distinction that needs to be made. If the tracks were destroyed, the vehicle would be unable to turn or fire.