Why is the M4A3 76mm 5.3???

[pompous]

Title.

[kamikazi21358]

Sir Det Mist の投稿を引用：

The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C. の投稿を引用：

The Jumbos and M4A3 are fine where they are.

No the 76mm isnt, its doesnt compete at all in 6.7 uptiers, the guns is very weak at that BR and the armor is useless, it fit 5.3 much better/

The M4A3 is perfect at 5.3, not OP nor underpowered, and the Jumbo 76 is very good at 5.7 already.

Fighting 6.3 and 6.7 tanks a problem?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD SOLVE THIS?

[Ymir2k]

Because all US tanks are overtiered for no reason

M36 Jackson has no business being at 5.7
M26 Pershing also has no business being at 6.3
76 Jumbo at 5.7 - lol

[kamikazi21358]

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M36 Jackson has no business being at 5.7

I thought it was 6.3?
Well if it is 5.7 for a US 90mm on a turreted tank destroyed — shut up and take my money!

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M26 Pershing also has no business being at 6.3

I have a 2.2 K/D in my Ariete version, I often get 7-8 kill games.

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

76 Jumbo at 5.7 - lol

The “lol” must be at your skill, no offense. The only issue it has is 6.7, which is what all 5.7 tanks have to deal with.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Sir Det Mist の投稿を引用：

The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C. の投稿を引用：

The 76 mm Jumbo is fine where it is at because its armour is still a ♥♥♥♥♥ to get through at that BR and the gun isn't terrible, though certainly lackluster. I have had no trouble with the 76 mm M4A3, granted it is the Japanese one but it is an exact copy of the American one, and it can still reliably kill tanks at its BR with the APHE round.

But it still isnt as effective as other medium tanks at the same BR so it should be there and then in uptiers these other 5.3 medium tanks are more effective, it a 4.7 tank, with APCR and a different shape hull, apart from that its the same in 95% of measurable ways, im fine with 5.0 but 5.3 makes no sense as theres nothing about it that makes it 5.3.

The only reason its 5.3 is because the M4A1 is 4.7 the M4A2 is 5.0 so they just put the M4A3 at 5.3 i makes no sense, the APCR is useless since APCR is probably the worst round in the game, other than that its basically the same tank.

I haven't played other tanks around its BR so I can't really comment on that. Other medium tanks, excluding the Panthers and T-44s, are easy to deal with though.

[Ymir2k]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M36 Jackson has no business being at 5.7

I thought it was 6.3?
Well if it is 5.7 for a US 90mm on a turreted tank destroyed — shut up and take my money!

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M26 Pershing also has no business being at 6.3

I have a 2.2 K/D in my Ariete version, I often get 7-8 kill games.

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

76 Jumbo at 5.7 - lol

The “lol” must be at your skill, no offense. The only issue it has is 6.7, which is what all 5.7 tanks have to deal with.

It would be good if devs bothered to fix russian 85mm ignoring armor

[rockinrobbyp]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

I officially reached my conclusion: US players are just terrible.

Not the tanks, not the planes, just the players. Almost every US vehicle I have ever played is either decent, great, or downright overpowered. Meanwhile, everyone just constantly complains how their BRs are too high — despite being either perfect, or in some occasional circumstances, overpowered.

So I was just playing allied tanks, guess what, 4.7-5.7. I have seen American teams just do terrible all the time, but this was just a whole new level — for referece, I have been playing War Thunder since some time 2014. Before that, I have played World of Tanks for a couple years, which btw has no teamwork. I have played various online games as well. I have always tried to be a very nice player, civil in chat, etc. Of all that time, for the 2nd time ever since I have ever played online games, have I openly expressed my dissatisfaction to a team how poorly they performed.

Please, before you go around “America Suffers!” “German Bias!”, this may not apply to everyone, but can you do me a favor? Sit back, and ask yourself — “is it the tank/plane, or is it me?”

I officially reached my conclusion. Bias against USA is just terrible.

[rockinrobbyp]

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

Because all US tanks are overtiered for no reason

M36 Jackson has no business being at 5.7
M26 Pershing also has no business being at 6.3
76 Jumbo at 5.7 - lol

T20 has no business at 5.0 when an IS1 is only 5.3 with 30% more pen, 50% more explosive, and 50% more armor. T20 needs a perfect shot, or to switch ammo and a very good shot just to pen the IS1. The IS1 can just lumber around and one shot everything and can't be penned, not easily. Should be 1 BR higher than the T20!

[kamikazi21358]

I am actually going to compare a 5.3 tank to a 5.7 tank real quickly.


Medium Tank M4A3E8 (76) W HVSS Sherman vs Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, Ausführung D


Armor


Turret

The entire turret front of the Panther D, although hard to hit, is 100mm of Cast Homogeneous Armor. The mantlet is the Panther D, with exception of 2 very small 130mm thick squares and the very, very edge of the turret mantlet, is also 100mm of CHA.

The turret sides of the M4A3 is 63.mm of CHA, however they form an auto-bounce angle, making only the center part of the turret viable for penetration. The same applies for the upper turret part, 63.5mm making an auto-bounce angle. Only the turret ring, 63.5 CHA, is viable for penetration outside of the mantlet (unless you’re in a KV-2 or something).
Mantlet: 98mm flat RHA, right next to the gun: 187mm RHA.

Both tanks have the shottrap place, the Panther can be penetrated outside of the mantlet however while the M4A3 is essentially curvy af.

Mantlet: the M4A3 actually has the better mantlet for the most part. The Panther’s curves, so if you only get a glancing shot on the upper part, it will be thicker. (Lower part though could be a shottrap, so if you don’t hit the upper part with a gun with 100+mm of penetration — win-win scenario.)
But the 100mm of CHA is actually weaker than the 98mm of RHA — so overall the M4A3 has marginally better mantlet armor. Meanwhile, you may have difficulty hitting the breach... because if you shoot too close to the gun, that is over 187mm of RHA. A rather small spot only covering the gun, so it isn’t the biggest of factors, but as a quick reminder, the Panther D can’t penetrate that — along with it being 2mm thicker than the Königstiger.

So I will actually say: the M4A3 is marginally better than the Panther D.


Hull

Probably know who wins.

However, I put this here to show, look by how much:

Superstructure

63.5mm RHA at 47 degrees.

80mm RHA at 55 degrees.

Obvious wonder, but actually consider it’s about ~16.5mm difference and ~7 degrees difference — ...that’s not all that much, considering the UFP and the gun are the Panther’s two main advantages. The M4A3 actually has very good armor.

Hull

M4: 63.5mm CHA at 56 degrees, to 107.9mm CHA slightly angled, to 63.5mm LFP at some pretty wonky angles.

Panther: 60mm RHA at 56 degrees.

For the most part, pretty much equal.



Overall: The Panther D is better obviously, but I don’t think people realize by how much. The UFP is the Panther’s primary advantage, however the turret is about equal if not to the M4. I mean... what does the Panther D in comparison earn? .3 BR higher?



Firepower

You probably know who wins, but for reference —


Reload — 9.6 seconds (KwK42)
Reload — 7.6 seconds (M1)


Panzergarnate 39:
935m/s
6.8kg shell, 28.9g TNT equiv.
185mm at 100m
149mm at 1000m
82mm at 100m (60 degrees)

M62:
792m/s
7.0kg, 63.7g TNT equiv.
125mm at 100m
106mm at 1000m
55mm at 100m (60d)

M79:
792m/s
6.8kg
154mm at 100m
107mm at 1000m
55mm at 100m (60d)

M93:
1036m/s
4.3kg
215mm at 100m
181mm at 1000m
50mm at 100m (60d)

The Panther D wins with shear penetration with it’s APCBC. The M4A3 hits harder with it’s heavier shell with more explosives, however to be fair it just makes it reliably 1 hit tanks more, at least until APHE actually performs historically, the 7.5cm still 1 hits to hull shots. The M4 can get increased penetration up to 155mm with solid shot. However one advantage the M4 can get is it has the ability to load APCR, which can penetrate the Tiger II (H) up to ~700m-800m or so.
But to be fair, it’s stock APCBC still can penetrate the Panther over 1000m, and even penetrate the Tiger II(P) at such a distance too.

Also the M4A3 gets smoke.

However the Panther D does have better HE-FRAG.

Overall: The Panther D wins, duh. However, the Panther doesn’t have any advantage when it comes with extra ammunition, the M4 if need can load extra penetrating AP, APCR, and smoke. Also the M4 has a higher rate of fire. But the PzGr39 makes it up completely ten-fold.


Mobility


Turret Traverse

Panther D: 4.9 degrees upgraded

M4A3: 16.8 degrees upgraded

Elevation

Panther D: -8 to 20

M4A3: -10 to 25

Vehicle Mobility

M4A3:
500hp engine
33.4 tonnes (~.6 w/ add-on armor)
14.97 hp/t (14.71 hp/t w/ add-on)
41km/h

Panther D:
650hp engine
44.8 tonnes (~.5 w/ add-on)
14.51 hp/t (~14.35 w/ add-on)
55km/h

The M4A3 is better, but to be fair a little, the Panther D has a better top speed that it will never reach.

Overall: M4A3E8 wins. Period. The Panther D’s turret turns worse than the M10, doesn’t have the elevation, and the M4 wins mobility wise by a small margin. The only advantage the Panther has is a better top speed — and when have you ever remembered going 55km/h in a Panther without throwing yourself off of a cliff? The Panther D is actually more of a heavy tank than a medium: great gun, good armor, poor mobility.





OVERALL

The Panther D is a better tank, but not by a whole lot. I love the M4A3E8, I’m am completely confident in it’s ability to take on Panthers, and even uptiers tanks like the Tiger II(P) and such.
How does the Panther D compare to the M4A3? The E8 is a great tank, but the Panther D is defiantly better. It deserves to be at a higher BR, but it is not very much better at all — I don’t see a need for say, more than
.3 BR difference.


M4A3E8:

>5.0s
~5.3s
<5.7s.

[Dakota]

The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C. の投稿を引用：

Sir Det Mist の投稿を引用：

The jumbo can, the M4A3E2 76mm, the M4A3 76mm makes no sense at 5.3, it just has APCR over its previous 2 tanks how is that worsth going from 4.7 to 5.3, its not, the M4A3 is 5.0 maximum and M4A3E2 76 is a 5.3.

The 76 mm Jumbo is fine where it is at because its armour is still a ♥♥♥♥♥ to get through at that BR and the gun isn't terrible, though certainly lackluster. I have had no trouble with the 76 mm M4A3, granted it is the Japanese one but it is an exact copy of the American one, and it can still reliably kill tanks at its BR with the APHE round.

How're you having trouble killing Jumbo armor at 5.7? Its butter by 5.3.

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M36 Jackson has no business being at 5.7

I thought it was 6.3?
Well if it is 5.7 for a US 90mm on a turreted tank destroyed — shut up and take my money!

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

M26 Pershing also has no business being at 6.3

I have a 2.2 K/D in my Ariete version, I often get 7-8 kill games.

Ymir2k の投稿を引用：

76 Jumbo at 5.7 - lol

The “lol” must be at your skill, no offense. The only issue it has is 6.7, which is what all 5.7 tanks have to deal with.

Ariete gets the massive bonus of suddenly facing a lot less things that easily pen it and a lot more things that don't and hesitation from enemies who think you're an ally.


Also to the post above, Panther D isn't the comparison anymore, Panther A is, they moved it on down to 5.7 so now there's no issue of turret traverse and you get APCR. Honestly after reading it all in full, there's so many holes in this sort of comparison, you didn't even go and check their real top speeds in testing grounds. Also how in the world do you manage to say a near flat cast armor plate that's sub 100mm aside from the spot directly infront fo the breech is a better mantlet than the Panther's 100mm rounded plate with various things behind it and a spall liner? The penable area of the sherman's armor is far larger than that of the panther's.

Your hull armor comparison is also rather biased. The upper hull of a panther is approximately 165mm effective armor vs APCBC shells. The Sherman's is approximately 105mm with dips down to 63mm on the seam between the upper and transmission. The lower for the sherman is 100mm up to 130 on the most angled spots at the bottom, on the Panther its also 165mm on the lower. No where near "equal" as you've stated, go and give a check to the armor values in protection analysis from average tank heights looking at the armor.

We can see that the Panther shoots holes through the Sherman hull all over while the sherman is completely incapable of penning the hull of a Panther. Against the turret the sherman can only pen the tiny cheeks of the panther or dead center of the mantlet front, otherwise it faces the angled parts of the mantlet and fails or hits an overlapping segment of the armor and fails. Meanwhile the Panther can get through the angled sides of the sherman frontally, all of the mantlet, and only has issue in the case of overlapping segments around the edges of the mantlet.

So lets just take a moment here to also realize that the 76mm is the same gun that the Jumbo 76 uses, and lets take note that it has trouble getting through a german medium tank of its same BR frontally aside from turret *weakspots*. The Panther has garunteed penetration of the Jumbo hull up to 600m away with its APCBC. The American 5.7 heavy has to aim at weakspots to pen the German 5.7 medium which is able to punch a hole right through the front of the heavy.

Reminder that "The jumbo 76 is a 6.0 tank". Absolutely disgusting BS.

[kamikazi21358]

Dakota の投稿を引用：

Ariete gets the massive bonus of suddenly facing a lot less things that easily pen it and a lot more things that don't and hesitation from enemies who think you're an ally.

In Realistic Battles? Yeah, enemies don’t hesitate, not one second. They fly around the corner, and they fire immediately, so no, not true.

Dakota の投稿を引用：

Also to the post above, Panther D isn't the comparison anymore, Panther A is, they moved it on down to 5.7 so now there's no issue of turret traverse and you get APCR.

You mean the 6.0 tank that was moved to 5.7 because of BR compression?

Also, yes, yes it is a good comparison. What BR is it? 5.7. I’m looking at it right now. Pz.Kpfw. Ausf. D. “Medium Tank” German. Rank: III. “Battle rating: 5.7”. Right there, on the stat card. Check it yourself, it’s quite interesting. It’s Rank III, Germany, in case you don’t pay too much attention to other trees. It’ll even be 50% off tomorrow if you’re interested in it.

Dakota の投稿を引用：

How're you having trouble killing Jumbo armor at 5.7? Its butter by 5.3.

Yes. Thoroughly tested it at 4.7 and 5.7: PzGr 39 of the 8.8cm L/56 cannot penetrate the Jumbo unless within ~220m of the tank from testing, in combat scenario, 7.5cm L/70 is ~300m approximately. These are gold standard guns of 5.7, you have to grab an open-topped tank destroyer or a derp tank to do better really. 17pdr, says in armor penetrator it can (low possibility) penetrate, but in testing after 70-80+ rounds fired, yeah unlikely. 3 penetrations: one in turret roof when on hill, 1 at close range though the MG port (after several tries), and one did go though the mantlet. It turned my gunner yellow.

I get uptiers all the time in my 75mm E2. I can penetrate a Tiger H1 or a Panther D at a farther range than a they can penetrate me.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Dakota の投稿を引用：

How're you having trouble killing Jumbo armor at 5.7? Its butter by 5.3.

I have been using the Japanese M4A3(76)W for a bit and the only way I could reliably penetrate the front is through the machine gun port and I am not good enough to hit those beyond 20 meters (exaggeration but you get my point).

[kamikazi21358]

Dakota の投稿を引用：

there's so many holes in this sort of comparison, you didn't even go and check their real top speeds in testing grounds.

I didn’t need to. Literally just got out of a battle playing with the Japanese one. Stock maneuverability wise. Already drives better than my spaded Panther D. Being ~20-30% heavier does make a difference.

Dakota の投稿を引用：

Also how in the world do you manage to say a near flat cast armor plate that's sub 100mm aside from the spot directly infront fo the breech is a better mantlet than the Panther's 100mm rounded plate with various things behind it and a spall liner? The penable area of the sherman's armor is far larger than that of the panther's.

Yeah, it’s sub 100mm.
98mm to be accurate — 2mm less than the Panther. Also I did make a mistake, I thought it was RHA, which is better than cast. However it is cast too apparently. So correction: “oh my god it’s 2mm less than the Panther!”

Also, I never notice a spall liner, it doesn’t do s*** against... ok any gun in the game I have every used to kill a Panther.

Also, your wrong about the ‘smaller area’. The mantlet is bigger on the Panther, so the approximate area of penetration is the same: ill say about 38 degrees is when the effective armor jumps from 108 effective to 120s, so I’ll say there. About the same exact size as the A3’s. Actually it looks about wider too. Which I am including the bottom part as well. Why? Shot trap: even better than a turret penetration.

Dakota の投稿を引用：

Your hull armor comparison is also rather biased.

Apparently citing the exact values of the armor in game is “being biased.”

Dakota の投稿を引用：

The upper hull of a panther is approximately 165mm effective armor vs APCBC shells. The Sherman's is approximately 105mm with dips down to 63mm on the seam between the upper and transmission. The lower for the sherman is 100mm up to 130 on the most angled spots at the bottom, on the Panther its also 165mm on the lower. No where near "equal" as you've stated, go and give a check to the armor values in protection analysis from average tank heights looking at the armor.

Uhh, you must be adjusting the screen to fit your argument. FYI effective armor doesn’t matter because, as you know, ~4 years ago now they changed from an effective thickness system, but for sake of argument:

Facing forward, the maximum effective armor at the very top of the plate is 132mm. Goes down to 120mm at bottom, completely facing forward. At approximately Panther hight, bottom is ~135mm.
E8 has ~92mm, and from my experience is pretty good for 5.3 (a lot of downtier tanks bounce, even 5.3/5.7s bounce when coming around corners and stuff), not bad. The Panther does have better armor, like I mentioned, but I would expect that for a slower tank that relies on it more.


I have better things I need to do, but my point was: the Panther D is a better tank... but not by all that much tbh. What does it deserve? .3 br difference? Guess what!


Also to add: if you look around, it’s better than almost all 5.0s. It’s comparable, actually in some cases, better than 5.3s. Perhaps it doesn’t fit your playstyle. Perhaps try a different nation. Better yet: a different game?

[kamikazi21358]

The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C. の投稿を引用：

Dakota の投稿を引用：

How're you having trouble killing Jumbo armor at 5.7? Its butter by 5.3.

I have been using the Japanese M4A3(76)W for a bit and the only way I could reliably penetrate the front is through the machine gun port and I am not good enough to hit those beyond 20 meters (exaggeration but you get my point).

Oh and also, in Simulator Battles, which should be in Realistic too but whatever, don’t forget you don’t have a magical fantasy camera strapped to your gun barrel.

Also, quick reminder: you can’t shoot things you can’t see. It would be an awful shame if someone were too... but a Bush over it....

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Oh and also, in Simulator Battles, which should be in Realistic too but whatever, don’t forget you don’t have a magical fantasy camera strapped to your gun barrel.

Also, quick reminder: you can’t shoot things you can’t see. It would be an awful shame if someone were too... but a Bush over it....

Oh, yeah, that would suck. I play AB and the port is already difficult to hit, at least with the zoom the tanks have around that BR, though I do admittedly have the 'scope from the scope' option enabled so I don't have the 'magical fantasy camera', even though it's in AB, but it isn't much of a liability since there is still the crosshairs. Well, at least until you get in close range.

[rockinrobbyp]

But doesn't the bottom line of USA having by far the worst win rate tell it all.
People always argue the details of what happens in differnt vehicles, but they ignore the end result. Which is always German and Russian vehicles are better than USA, and win more.