Absolutely not weak its far more balanced you cant have so many tanks vs soldiers and right now its even worse for tanks with drones.
Churchill was absolutely useless outdated tank. A good tank is something mobile and reliable. Churchill even in WW 2 standard was outdated tank biased on WW 1 technology.
They are not literally you can see the marker for them and shoot them they cant camp from the other end of the map they must come to you in order to kill you. Its much easier to spam HE with tank then bombs with aircraft. Playing aircraft is not for campers and you can see the direction of the aircraft so building AA gun is literally guaranteeing you a aircraft kill meanwhile tankers are immune sometimes to bombs and anti tank weapons. The effectiveness of AA guns is far better then Anti tank weapons since the rendering for aircrafts is 500 meters so by the time you see the AA gun you are probably in his range. However open top AA vehicles and guns can be taken down but close top in a frontal engagement is a suicidal exchange. Kugelblitz has 100 ammo belt no AA has such capability and can see the direction you are flying even when you try to turn so I don’t see how this is balanced unless it overheats too much which wont be fun and I wont be buying it. Also it would be far better if you can pick the ammo you load from 3 types mixed ,amor piercing and HE. Instead of this we gonna get probably only mixed.
Well no the game already has too many vehicle slots I don’t see a solution to this unless we increase the maximum number of players in a match.
Their service history would contradict you… They only became outdated in Korea, before that their record was distinguished. And, interestingly, in trials the Australian Army concluded that the Churchill design was superior to the M4 in jungle warfare.
I assume you mean “WW1 doctrine” and not technology… not that either are correct of course. British tank doctrine, or specifically the classifications of tanks that would be imagined to be used, wasn’t any more or less correct than other doctrines at the time. The Light/Medium/Heavy Tank divide was just as wrong as the Cruiser/Infantry Tank divide… and people conveniently forget that the Germans started out in the war with a very similar two-tank doctrine very much inspired by the British own inter-war developments…
You’re trying to describe the Main Battle Tank, something that didn’t exist during WW2… only people that got close to the concept were the Americans, but they were unsatisfied with the design they had decided to standardise at.
Completely agree.
Referring to the data from WT, I think it is not reasonable to place KugelBlitz and Skink in the same br. If the former is placed in br4, it can still form a quite strong queue. Of course, we still need to wait for the specific game performance, such as the power of autocannon (armor piercing ability, high explosive range and damage), overheating limit, and so on. 15cm sIG 33 B Sfl is a good example, and I think br3 is a suitable weight, even though it is at 1.0 in WT.
As for the ISU 152, given the existing KV2, I am not willing to drive it even if it is placed in BR3.
It has to be said that the Churchill tanks in the game are poorly balanced. The TT variant is far too tough, so it can’t be placed at BR 3 and ends up getting picked off by Tigers and Panthers. The versions for higher-tier squads have far too thin armor, easily penetrated by Panzer IVs. All in all, they perform worse than the KV-1.
To be honest, I’ve been wondering if the U-Blitz could outperform the Panzer III N in terms of anti-infantry effectiveness. You have to spray targets one by one with the former, while also watching out for overheating. By contrast, the latter can pin down large groups of infantry nonstop with sustained arcing fire.
As for the ISU-152. If I can’t use the turretless KV-2, why would I pick it over the regular turreted KV-2 and KV-1? The excuse of fearing a second 152mm gun is pretty weak. All in all, we can only pass judgment after the vehicle is officially added. What’s more, these tanks share the exact same ammunition, which really baffles me.
Germany did no have one part of their tank force capped out as walking pace which is a huge diffrence. If the germany had tried the same manovers which resulted in the encirclement of dunkirk but with the infantry support docrine of the british the french would have had plenty of time to regroup once it was clear the maginot line had been broken through by rommel. If your tank can only drive as fast as you can walk exploiting a breakthrough gets so much harder as you are forced to kinda abandon the slower tanks with your faster forces or you give up the advantage entirely.
Just because speed isnt as important while charging into enemy positions does not mean speed cant be used somewhere else aswell. If the british wanted to exploit a weakspot in the german lines they identified, by useing churchils they first need to redeploy, they risk the intel beeing out of date by the time they arrive or the front having already changed. This really doesnt make slow tanks very flexible and kind only leaves them the option to try to grind down the enemy where he is strongest.
No amount of nationalism will turn this poorly design tank biased on outdated doctrine and technology to an M4 that was used even by the British.
The German strategy was biased on light armor using air superiority and artillery and the tanks where light and fast outmaneuvering the enemy the moment Germany started producing its useless big cats the war was over for them.
Clearly M4 and T34 where far closer to main battle tank then the Churchill ever been. It was a bad platform biased on outdated trench warfare. Compare it to a soviet T 34 or M4 and you will realize they are far better platforms since you can do a lot of things with them. Doom turtles are only good in video games in real life they where absolute trash to this day no one is producing slow super heavy tanks. Churchill was a tank that got almost everything wrong neither you can put good gun on or sloped armor and it had terrible mobility no modern tank resembles it for a reason it was outdated even during WW2 and in Korea war it had exactly no use at all. The only thing good about it was track-and-gear design that was good for hills since it was designed to cross trenches however when everything else is bad the tank had no use in Korea and was abandoned even T -34 did more in Korea then the Churchill. The most important factor for a tank is to be mobile and to this day remains the same. German light tanks took half of Europe and T-34s Korea with devastating effects the poor Churchill compared to them had very minor effect on this conflicts. Centurion Mk 1 was the best tank UK designed during the war far ahead of the Churchill . Churchill was World War 1 junk that ended in WW 2. Just like the French tanks it was outdated.
My guess is that the 30mm HE and the polsten will heaviely be nerfed in their effectiveness and will just end up beeing a glorified T-60 with the TNsh that really isnt OP but in a higher BR.
Doing more research that one in particular is a British design the British folded their stocks in place while the Canadians welded it on that particular model is British done by a single company
Im not even going to try and correct everything.
You think that one tank design has to do the job of all.
But the tanks you brought up as examples were not MBTs.
The Sherman couldnt even perform both infantry support and anti-tank duties at the same time, 75mm and 76mm shermans had to be deployed together.
Not to mention all the different specialised designs built on Sherman like the tank hunters such as M36 jackson or M10 Wolwerine, recovery vehicles, ammo supply carriers, self propelled guns…
We even have the Jumbo in game which was built for the same purpose as the Churchill: breaking through heavily fortified enemy lines.
Naturally, the Churchill which was purpose built for the job was many many times more effective at its role.
Use churchills to break through and Shermans to drive on, exploit the gap, envelop the enemy.
Its not rocket science, just basic strategy.
Same could be said about T-34s which had dedicated tank destroyer and assault gun variants…
Ironically the only real MBT of the war was the Tiger I, but that was useless according to you.
The Tiger I at the time of its deployment it had all requirements of an MBT:
protection of a heavy tank
fire power strong enough to destroy enemy tanks, support infantry, destory enemy hard points
fast as a light tank (it was even faster than a Panzer II C or Panzer 38(t))
You would be correct if you dont have to do the logistics for the German army and realize it was not the most produced tank its very important to have as much as possible standardization in your army since no tank will move without oil or shoot without ammo. So good luck with that Tiger I. All you need to do check the numbers of ammo produced for 7.5 cm KwK 40 / Pak 40 and you will realize that Tiger I was not a main battle tank at all. It was highly expensive and costly vehicle that Germany had in limited numbers that could not afford.
88mm shells were already used with Flak guns long before Tigers.
Germany was not a poor agrarian country that could only afford to use a single shell type.
Well not only it was the tank with the most produced ammo for it was used for logistical reasons. Its very hard to switch logistics to a different gun in mid war.
Then check for which guns they produced the most ammo and you will realize what where the most used tank guns and no it was not the 88mm as wehraboos love to believe…
No, US had to deal with heavy armour of Panthers, Tiger IIs as well (in fact Tiger II was first deployed in June 1944, Normandy).
Shermans operated in packs of 4.
1 sherman with 76mm gun and 3 sherman with 75mm guns because one could not do the job of both.
This doesnt make it a bad tank though. But its obviously not an MBT by definition, though its very anachronistic to talk about MBTs in WW2 since the whole concept did not exist back then.
