Some Tank Destroyers' BR is not appropriate

Archive Suggestions - Archive
1

I particularly need to clarify that some vehicles are not equipped with any machine guns, and are not even fully enclosed convertible vehicles. Some even have weaker armor protection compared to equivalent vehicles. Their BR shouldn’t even be in these positions.I will list the vehicles that I personally believe are in great need of lowering their BR, and I will list the reasons one by one.
Germany：Dicker Max, Jagdpanzer IV/L48, JadgepanzerIV/L70 V

Soviet: SU76M SU85M SU100

Japan:Na-To

USA: M10 GMC ,M18 GMC

First of all is Dicker Max, BR4>BR3 .Its only advantage is a 105 cannon, no any machinegun, convertible vehicle,narrow range cannon, extremely slow movement speed, extremely slow cannon turning speed, A small amount of ammunition allocation,vulnerable armor in BR4,It should go to BR3 because any firepower can easily kill it .
Jagdpanzer IV/L48, BR4>BR3.Ordinary armor strength in BR4, mediocre artillery in BR4, narrow range machine gun and cannon, poor visibility. The low body of the vehicle heavily relies on map scenes, making it difficult to achieve effective performance to fight T34/85 ，it should go to BR3 with panzer IV
JadgepanzerIV/L70 V,BR5>BR4,narrow range machine gun and cannon, poor visibility. The low body of the vehicle heavily relies on map scenes.
Now is soviet, SU76M, BR3>BR2.No any machinegun, convertible vehicle, mediocre artillery in BR3 but useless in any higher BR, vulnerable armor in any BR,narrow range cannon, poor visibility. The low body of the vehicle heavily relies on map scenes, making it difficult to achieve effective performance to fight any target.If anyone think it should stay in BR3 they are crazy.
SU85M,BR5>BR4,No any machinegun, Ordinary armor in BR4 but vulnerable in BR5 ,low movement speed, slow cannon turning speed, narrow range cannon, poor visibility. The low body of the vehicle heavily relies on map scenes.
SU100,BR5>BR4,It only upgrade 85cannon to 100 cannon,100mm cannon is a good weapon but still the carrier vehicle is no match it but still has same bad things like SU85M had, and it now have small amount of ammunition allocation.

Na-To in Japan, BR4>BR3.No any machinegun, convertible vehicle, vulnerable armor in any BR ,a barely usable cannon,arrow range cannon, extremely slow movement speed, extremely slow cannon turning speed.Poor ammunition types and unacceptable allocation of high explosive ammunition quantities .Basically, it’s a bulky anti tank gun that can be destroyed by any firepower.

M10 GMC, BR4>BR3 .Convertible vehicle, acceptable movement speed, extremely slow cannon turning speed, vulnerable armor in BR4 ,BR3,and ordinary BR2. Vehicle mounted machine gun that requires the vehicle commander to be exposed before use. Mainly to cope with the adjustments made by Panzer IV j at BR3.
M18 GMC，BR5>BR3,Convertible vehicle, high movement speed, fine cannon turning speed, vulnerable armor in any BR.Vehicle mounted machine gun that requires the vehicle commander to be exposed before use.It heavily relies on map size, but there are very few maps that allow it to exercise mobility. Often, it is a mobile anti tank gun that can be destroyed by any firepower,It can be seen as a highly mobile version but low armor of the M10, but it is almost impossible to appear as a normal tank in frontal combat.

8 Likes
2

If you feel that the BR of other tankdeatroyers or self-propelled artillery are not suitable, you can also list them below. Our goal is to increase the appearance rate of these vehicles, rather than completely leaving no one to choose to play with

3

Jagdpanzer IV L48 has 60mm of sloped armor, while the later unlock Jagdpanzer IV L70 has 80mm of armor.

Both are useless at their current BRs, however they might be nearly immortal at one BR lower.

I personally think the Jagdpanzer IV L48 should have its armor increased to 80mm - then stay in BR4 as a simple “progression vehicle” while the Jagdpanzer IV L70 should also be lowered to BR4.

Its seems easier for BR4 to deal with 80mm of slope compared to BR3 dealing with 60mm of slope.

Br 3 should be reserved for Stugs

4

There is no immortality in this. A tank destroyer without a turret can actually perform much worse than a regular tank, and you also need to observe. I also mentioned putting the m10 and m18 in BR3, which is even less of a problem. For the Soviets, they do not lack any good anti tank weapons in BR3

5

oh,I forget this,It should go to BR4

6

On one hand I support the idea that APGs should have - 1 BR than tanks with the same gun.

But, I play stug3 quite a lot and I can tell you that this thing is almost immortal vs BR1-2. So first of all we need proper BR queues that acrually work (unlike this 2 queue mutation). Then we can think about changing stuff.

2 Likes
7

I think stugIII is very suitable with BR3,so I didn’t talk about it

1 Like
8

I can see why. But imo it needs some improvements as it’s instantly outclassed by the next tank in line.

9

You misunderstood my idea. Although it is generally correct, but some tankdestroyers like stug
III have already been in the right position,we are talk about others

1 Like
10

Well whats the purpose of Tankdestroyers when they can’t even stomp tanks that are 1br below them?

1 Like
11

Tank destroyers sacrifice anti infantry and self-protection capabilities which are important abilities in Enlisted. If these vehicles are still unable to effectively strike other lower BR tanks, there is no need for them to exist

1 Like
12

I agree, the SU-76M is a meme where it currently lands.

They put it LEVEL with the T34. As if it were any match for a tank with 2x the speed, 50%-200% thicker armor, 300% engine power, larger ammo reserve, an MG and a rotating turret.

The BM-8-24 is a strictly better version of the SU and it’s way at the start of tier 2. These tanks should be neighbours by every rule.

SU-100 is struggling at its rank as well, especially when you can opt for a better tank again. I would personally have expected an ISU-152 in that spot, The SU-100 just doesn’t have the right amount of armor or cannon sweep range to go pixel hunting against the best German tanks.

I agree with ranking down the SU-100, and I can see a need for the firepower of an ISU-152 considering the current state of faction balance.

2 Likes
13

thanks for your reply

1 Like