It won’t make much of a difference for M24 because it uses a low velocity 75mm gun giving it APCBC would be nice but would really only offer better post pen.
1 Like
But then there are worse performing tanks in BR 3.
Tanks like the chi nu would be less mobile, have way less mg dakka due no coax or 50 cal for commander and entirely reliant on their HE and ultimately even has to face better armored opponents unlike a US tank.
The diffrence in armor is negligible since 50mm flat wont stop shit anyway.
So the only meaningfull downside the ammo capacity can easiely mitigated quickly restocking but wont matter if your tank the enemy gets you first.
With accurate shooting and luck, even the APDS and APCR shells can destroy Tiger II (H) in one shot, but this still doesn’t change the fact that APDS and APCR have the worst lethality among all shells.
1 Like
Guys I killed a king tiger with the rhino Stuart that means it has a rlly good cannon and should be br 4!!!
Don’t use another tanks problems to justify not solving this ones. The answer to that conundrum you have is to move the chi nu to br 2.
lol what? did you break or something? I’m showing the the chaffee doesn’t have a piece shit cannon which you paint it out to be.
How is what you said even relevant? To kill a tiger with stuart you need to get on its side… i shot a tank that’s on the same BR and one shotted by pure luck… if it can happen like that then it for sure can happen intentionally.
So ur justification for not giving a tank a stronger shell is you got a lucky one shot against a tank of the same br…. But I’m the one not making sense.
You already admitted urself that ur against this argument cuz of it being suggested repeatedly not for any actual reasoning. Back off dude
I do it consistently every time i use the tank… i just so happened to get that clip after pulling it out in awhile and bursted out laughing when i killed it.
I have said your incessant spamming of it gave me distaste towards it… i’m allowed to share my opinion on it as it do inherently disagree with the change as i don’t think it needs a buff as it performs fine and well for me.
You aren’t one of those people who complain about power creep right? Because making this for sure one shot every time i’d consider power creep… then again i count care less about that.
I’m guessing you will say the same bad armor argument… which makes a lot of sense in low br when really it’s good at getting to HE spam positions quick like say in the hills of that one conquest game with the ruins. and you can even rearm quick.
However, yes using that clip as an example is fairly dishonest… it was luck… but i considered it no different than my usual experience… ONCE i have experienced the annoying fight where i shot the gunner and he got his before me and you wanna know why i died? Because i sat there like a dunce and let him just spam fire… instead of using the MOBILITY of the light tank to get a new position and atleast hit on the move.
That WOULD have been skill… not relying on one shot… once again sounds like power creep to me… which you seem like the type to complain about.
There are plenty of people on this forum who disagree with a lot of things that should be no brainer change… this may be one to you… you can choose to pick me out and that’s fine… if you wish not to see me then i welcome you to use the block feature… i have sadly resorted to using that feature with one such person.
It’s not power creep if literally every other nation has that ability bud. Also the receipts are literally in this topic don’t try to pretend you didn’t say the reason ur so against it was cuz of repeated posting. You even admitted it made sense before forgetting and coming back here with more bs.
And again. If you one shot tanks with it regardless then surely this is a nice quality of life change that also has the tank using its irl ww2 shell instead of what was delegated to practice and exports, the m72.
You can’t try to simultaneously claim that the lower damage is not a problem and that adding this shell is power creep. Either it makes a difference or it doesn’t.
I have not a singular idea what power creep is defined to be however it’s always mentioned when something is suggested to become better… “noo!! that’s power creep!!” when really it was just shit for the faction they didn’t like… so probably not the most intelligent phrase to throw around especially given its reputation here.
Like for example if i remember correctly giving soviets t-44-100 is power creep? How?
So i digress on that… i just correlated that to it and found it ironic… i apologize.
As for just cuz it’s my faction. I am fully 100 percent bias for the Chaffee but that doesn’t mean I don’t want other nations to also receive buffs that would make the Chaffee essentially weaker.
Give br 2 axis stronger at launcher. Give their short 75 a more useful shell than the current anti tank one. Move chi nu down to br 2. Give Japan a br 3 launcher. Give Japan a tech tree br 1 47mm tank.
My point isn’t these suggestion but more so the fact that even if I am bias doesn’t mean I can’t be objective.
Cuz the t44 100 is equal to arguably the strongest tank in the game. And giving an is with a 100mm is more in line. Also the fact that at br 5 Russia is the strongest certainly doesn’t help with the power creep problem.
1 Like
Power creep is when the bar is pushed forward. In order for this to be power creep you have to argue this becomes the strongest tank of br 2 or it pushes America as a whole above other nations at br 2. That’s why I’m somewhat against the grant and Lee getting apcbc since I do consider them currently the strongest tanks at br 2. But even that is debatable.
Because the T-44-100 would arguably be better than the King Tiger.
It’s not like it lack pen in the first place. It is on br 2, the 104mm penetration for the APCBC round could easily pen basically any tank it will met while having good post pen damage. It will make M24 to become a powerful tank killer on br2.
It’ll still be somewhat inconsistent against br 3 tanks and still has downsides of bar armor slow reload and low ammo count.
The same way as the long panzer 4 is inconsitant so lets move the panzer 4 also into BR 2 then.
Given how exessive the 100mm pen is for BR 2 given what you face the 135mm pen of the f2 is equaly overkill but with less post pen.
So all in all it would be just a worse tank.
So cuz a tank with a worse reload worse armor and worse ammo count has a round with worse penetration you think that gives ur argument any sort of standing……
Please could u try again with an actual argument instead of some poorly made comparison that is only made to complicate the situation, not actually forward discussion?