Stop worrying about historical accuracy. Because of the ammunition they use, these two tanks are practically way too weak — way too underpowered. If you like it, just go and demand to keep solid shot for them. Look at Germany’s low-tier tanks now — the short 75mm guns have already all been given new shells. Why can’t these older tanks get new ammo too? The Sherman got its M61 shell updated ages ago, after all.
1 Like
It’s not about historical accuracy it’s because i think it’s fine where it is… i have no problem with it and quite frankly have bad feelings towards it as one person has been specifically spamming this over and over and repetition is annoying.
Well, if we’re talking specifically about the M42…
Germany already has HEAT shells for its short 75mm guns at Battle Rating 2.0 — you know, the kind of premium ammo that used to be exclusive to the paid Pz.IV E during the Moscow campaign. Now that it’s available in the tech tree, it’s basically everywhere. This isn’t like some rare high-penetration 50mm round — the HEAT shell’s explosive filler is serious business. Against tanks like the Crusader or M3, it can pretty much disable them in one shot.
Now looking back at the tanks mentioned in this post… they still haven’t received updated ammo. It’s just that they were introduced too late — even the Pz.IV has been updated, but they’re still stuck with old shells. At this point, seeing them in-game is practically a rarity. They weren’t strong to begin with, and not giving them better ammo feels… excessive.
As for the M42 — honestly, even if it got updated ammo, I don’t think it would shake things up too much. As a premium tank, I think it’s fine to let it have shells comparable to the Sherman’s. After all, its hull can still be easily destroyed by a 50mm gun — it’s no Tiger in terms of toughness. German anti-tank weapons can still take it out without much trouble.
…Oh, wait, I just realized you mentioned “spamming.” I didn’t see who was spamming — I only just opened this thread for the first time and noticed the mention of this tank. I had honestly forgotten it even existed. Haven’t run into one in ages, and I’ve never really thought about advocating for its buff.
1 Like
he made an account to post here but since obviously more people have suggested it other than that person so it’s not fair to have such a bias… it would make the tank on apr to other ones i suppose even the pz 3 m
1 Like
Although it’s not just him suggesting this — how do I put it? If someone posts a thread and nobody responds, it gradually gets forgotten, and no one cares anymore. But if multiple people keep bringing up the same topic over time, I think that’s actually a good thing — it means more and more people are paying attention to it. Maybe he specifically came here to post because he’s been struggling with this vehicle himself and feels it at least deserves better ammunition.
Wait, which tank are you referring to? Are you talking about the British twin-turret Grant? The Panzer III M at least has some capability — it can somewhat engage a KV, even if not very effectively. But that British tank… without a decent explosive shell, it really has no chance to survive. A Panzer IV could easily tear it apart.
As for the Chaffee — it’s an American tank, and a 1944 model at that. It should definitely have access to the M61 shell.
1 Like
Are you talking about this post, perhaps? Give the m24 m61/apcbc It only mentions the M24, but now this post covers all BR2 tanks, including the Grant, M3Lee, and M8A1 tank destroyer.
However, my suggestion is to include all BR2 tanks.
Among these shells, it’s particularly ironic that the M8A1 doesn’t get the M61—its penetration and post-penetration effects are inferior to the original, and its only advantage is shell velocity. But slower shell velocity isn’t entirely a drawback either. Honestly, this thing isn’t great when it’s available, nor is it particularly missed when it’s removed. It’s just pointless through and through. What are your thoughts on British tanks?
3 Likes
ok if the ap is already good then surely apcbc shouldnt make that much of a difference
crazy that u admitted urself you are against this only cuz of a person. means youre not a very objective person even if you pertend to be
maybe if you didn’t mention it every given chance and post it in multiple different formats all trying to achieve the same goal i wouldnt be so biased against it . just a thought.
What on earth are you talking about? I can’t follow, but in this thread, are you arguing with about three people? The original poster, the one with the purple username who commented first, and then the second person who replied to you. This is the issue—when problems accumulate without being resolved, they’ll keep resurfacing. That’s just reality. New posts are made every day, and while older suggestions might have been valuable, they get buried due to lack of attention until everyone forgets they ever existed. In the end, those threads die, lingering unresolved and meaningless. But if something is truly important, it will keep coming up. Plus, this suggestion is actually a good one—it covers all 75mm guns at BR 2.
1 Like
I’m specifically put off on this topic because of one specific someones incessant mentioning of it on the reddit which what can i expect right… i also disagree because it is long 75 even if its worse than kwk40… on principle.
Other tanks sure… premiums are notoriously down or sidegrades to tech tree… and this is such with m24 and scott.
God forbid a popular suggestion was mentioned multiple times. For some reason that means you lost all ability to use logic and now have an irrational hatred against the m24 chaffee
No? I’m fine where it is and use it in every one of my BR3 america lineups.
I suppose i have an irrational hatred against this suggestion though… you made it half of your personality along with other grievances i have towards you that are irrelevant to this conversation.
To me you are like the kid in class constantly asking the teacher about when recess is going to happen.
Hidden in my like you said irrational disagreement towards this i have shown agreement in this in that it would make it on par with tanks such as PZ 3 M but i will reiterate my principle on long 75.
The community managers recently revealed that widespread report isn’t sufficient. Persistent support is required. For consistent support to be shown you need consistent posting.
1 Like
Which really means nothing when comparing u.s. shells to germany’s lol. Have you looked at stats? How do you think the “long” barrel (which by the way ain’t really long, it’s more of a medium length) makes it better or on par to germany’s short barrel.
1 Like
Maybe he was referring to the long reload? 
This is true… i won’t even argue with this.
Barrel length has zero impact on HE shells, nor HEAT rounds. Only affects ap, aphe, apcr, and apcbc. There’s a lot of german tanks using heat in low tier on their short barrel tanks. They could literally have longer barrels and they would perform the same penning over 90mm. Germans low tier heat rounds also put out like 3x the explosive equivalent of u.s. apcbc rounds and they have roughly the same penn. Right now u.s. br 2 tanks have no at rounds with filler and do quite a bit less penn. (Other than m8 scott)
Also it’s a change that most people are initially against. So in order to change that you need to over time get people more on board. That requires multiple posts. If one of them takes off you need to ride the hype so it gets shared with as many people as possible. The entire Reddit and discord is on board with it now I just gotta convince people in the forum. But you can only repost after a month so I’m biding my time and making an infographic so people are forced to at least absorb some info
That’s because most people on forum are german lover boys