the hull of the m24 is 24mm and the chi nu is not flat no way its coming off as 50mm
if you scope in the sherman or grant it switched to the 37mm i dont know what you are talking about
the 75 has zero zoom thats what i said fine for killing infantry but its usless for killing tanks at anything but point blank
the grant and lee are built like a barn what angles are you talking about
Again dude. Angles. The m24 hull has equivalent armor of 50mm. Stop talking about stuff you don’t know about
So like notice how the grant and Lee and curves and angles plates. Observe the slope of the hull. This makes armor better. Again if ur gonna talk about armor maybe check their in game equivalent stats instead of not accounting for angling and only checking the wiki?
Has a worse cannon than majority of br 3 tanks.
not true. already explained that it has similar performance to the shermans gun, that most br 3 american tanks use. russian br 3 76mm gun got worse pen and slower reload, but more explosive filler. german 75mm gun has a lot of pen but very little explosive filler, often requiring multiple hits to take down a tank.
all these cannons are br 3 worthy
1 Like
first the hull of the m24 is 24 mm and angled
the hull of the chi nu is 50m and angled almost as much
no its not equal if the chi nus hull was flat it would be
Sherman has better reload and better angle pen and if it comes up better performance at range.
type 3 has 104g explosive filler (tnt-equivalent), sherman only got 64g. for HE shells type 3 got 810g, sherman only 666g. they are on the same performance level
do you really think type 3 75mm is worse than soviet 76mm guns from kv-1/t-34?
1 Like
ok you are right about the armor but the anti tank weapon of the grant and lee are the 37mm cannon, second what br1 tank can fight the chi nu
sigh i will admit this with br-+0 it might almost be fair to have the chi nu at br2
pz3J1 ( 50mm gun ) has same amount of filler as panther, yet its absolute garbage.
Well maybe take a look at enlisted in game stats. keep in mind only last 3 numbers (and rlly only the third and second to last) matter
performance of chi nu he
performance of sherman he.
and sherman has a faster reload along with a coax.
and yes the soviet 76 has extremely good angle penetration.
also 30 grams of tnt and beyong is more than enough to consistently disable and kill tanks that you face at br 2. and chi nu doesnt exactly have good survivability upon being penetrated
any br 1 tank can fight a chi nu? as long as it has a cannon. it only has at most 50mm of armor. 2 pounder 37mm and 45mm respectively have 72, 79, and 70mm of pen. along with double the firerate
and oh no it has a 37mm. remind me what tank does japan have at br 3 in this hypothetical? a chi-nu 2? Which has identical armor to the chi nu? Aka abysmal? So why is the 37mm being the main anti tank gun a problem?
and tell me what are the chance of a full crew kill if the 37mm does not detonate the fuel or ammo
yes assuming youre using the tank specialized for anti infantry with better armor and more crew and survivability and you dont hit ammo or detonate fuel, it will take more than one shot to completely kill a chi nu. i got great news for you tho. 37mm has double the fire rate of the chi nu! you can just shoot again
ok then what tech tree br2 tank is as good as the chu ni
that is what br2 tank us/uk is an anti tank, tank
Ill do you one better. name a tech tree br 2 ally tank that the chi nu is better at anti infantry then
btw out of curiosity do you have any actual argument for chi nu not being br 2 now or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing cuz I have torn apart every argument you have had up to this point to either be not relevant or simply not true