Chrysler K: Can It Be Historical AND Balanced?

By: Legiondude
Contributing Editors: ThatTrafficCone and Avalon304

Hello everyone, my name is Legiondude and I’ll be in the commander’s hatch today. I’m not quite sure when this article will make it out of the pipe, but it began drafting just at the close of #FochGate. So far, it doesn’t appear that Wargaming has given any concrete plans on how to change the way things are being done yet regarding the Chrysler K, other recent premiums, or their policy for future premiums. Perhaps now is time to propose a new solution then, at least for this tank, to illustrate how historical accuracy can be a beneficial tool in balancing this tank while keeping it fair to those that play with and against it?


Utilizing that black magic known to the world as Trigonometry, a spreadsheet for mapping armor regions, and, the vehicle will be measured for its current effective armor levels and then projected with historical armor schemes. These armor schemes will be listed at 4 ways per plate: the base thickness of the area with the general angle, the effective thickness without normalization (vs HEAT, HE, or HESH), the effective thickness with AP normalization, and the effective thickness with APCR normalization.

The Chrysler K will be tested under two major scenarios with two variations each. Firstly, a straightforward assault, and when the vehicle is at an optimum sidescraping angle. Both of these scenarios will have an “in the open” and “with cover” variant to their tests.

Flanking situations are omitted since either the Chrysler is fast enough to out traverse its opponent which results in a frontal or angled engagement again, or it’s distracted by another target, flanked and wrecked like just about any other vehicle.

These armor schemes will be used to measure against the average penetration of standard and gold ammunition for each tier-class(i.e. Tier 6 light tanks or Tier 8 heavy tanks), plus the Chrysler K itself to illustrate the general chance if a Chrysler can be fought against or not. These averages are derived from Tank Inspector. It should be noted that while it is not a perfect measure to show what goes on in the typical game, if the average fails the test then that does suggest that generally half the guns a player could bring to the fight from that tier-class will fail as well.

A red-yellow-green color code is used for these Tier-class charts, with red being little chance to pen with either round, yellow being able to pen with premium ammunition, and green being a chance to pen with standard ammunition. In other words, the more widespread the red and yellow, the more problematic fighting this tank can be in any single match.

Live Client

Frontal Engagement

Here is the current armor scheme, color coded green to red from the lowest armor values to 375 mm or higher (1 more than the average gold round penetration for tier 10 TD’s).

Here we can see the first two weaknesses in a head on fight. The forward sponson floor raises up slightly for track clearance but leaves a slight gap which can be exploited for tanks on lower ground. It is quite small however and on level striking ground is at the 70 degree auto bounce threshold. The next weakness is the lower glacis, which even head on with no angling by the player, will still be able to bounce the German 88 mm L/71’s standard ammunition just under 50% of the time at close range.

Against the competition, this is how it fares:

View post on

In the current situation we can see that for most tanks below tier 8, the only hope is gold rounds IF that. What if we suppose the Chrysler driver is skilled enough to become partially hull down though, such as behind some rubble in Himmelsdorf, or a smaller destroyed tank, where the cupola and a dead on shot in the turret face become the primary weaknesses?

View post on

Basically impervious to most tanks at or below it’s tier.

Angled Engagement

When the player is angled with the gun 20 degrees to either side, the side armor reaches the auto bounce threshold. How does the tank appear here?

View post on

View post on

And the competition says?

View post on

If you’re driving a tank destroyer, I’ve got some good news for you. If you’re at or below tier 8, I’ve probably got some bad news for you. Here we see the problem SirFoch was pointing out so plainly, most of the competition at the Chrysler’s tier MUST fire gold to get through the ONE weakpoint here, and many of the lower tiered competition don’t even have that mercy.

If the glacis is hidden(such as sidescraping against a building), then we go back to the Cupola scenario above if he’s sidescraping and firing to his right. If he’s firing off his left, then blasting through the turret face as it zips back and forth behind cover would probably require a minimum of 260mm of penetration to comfortably strike though, effectively a tier 10 exclusive to handle without gold.

Historical Revision


Due to it’s short lifespan there’s very little to tell about the Chrysler K heavy tank, and what is known was discussed by Priory_Of_Sion years ago on FTR. The basics are as such:
60 tons (noted as optimistic by Hunnicutt)
1200 horsepower engine
All crew in the turret
105mm T5E1
3-7 inches (76.2-177.8 mm) thick on all major surfaces, with the thickest parts being the turret face and the lower glacis (30 degrees from the vertical). Sides and rear for the turret and hull equally set to 3 inches

For purposes of filling in the blanks while trying to fit the requirements, I have modeled the unspecified upper glacis after the T32’s frontal plates. These had a ratio of 127/95 mm for the upper and lower plates respectively. Inverting the relation for the lower plate being thicker and applying this to the Chrysler results in a nominal thickness of 133.35 mm on the upper plate. Also based on the T32, the primary ring of the cupola has been reduced to 152.4 mm (at 50 degrees) from 177.8 mm. Lastly, the forward sponson surface is adjusted from 82.6 mm to 76.2 mm.

This revision proposal will also only be considering changes to the major armor surfaces that will be shot. Though stricter adherence would invite raising the minor detail parts such as the 38mm turret roof to the minimum 76.2 mm, this will just be working to apply the requirements to the primary combat zones on the tank(Mainly front and sides).

I also do not go into detail about the distribution of turret armor here, but the gradient of armor thickness would be ideally a spread between the 3 and 7 inch requirements.

Frontal Engagement

Would you look at that? Much easier. The turret face is a new weak zone… IF you can strike it dead on. Due to the angling of the hemispheric shape, it can get trickier when in motion. If you can’t be bothered with the turret, there’s the front sponson, but it may be too low to strike. This leaves the ordinary lower glacis

With all three options available, we get this result:

View post on

Tier 6 mediums now have a chance. Lower tier tank destroyers now have a consistent chance against it, alongside tier 8 light tanks and opposing Chrysler K’s.

If we assume the target player is hull down…

There is no change to the chart actually. The turret face is still a weakness to be used, and then motion straight backward and forwards doesn’t change the dead on aim needed to penetrate the turret face. If we’re talking those kinds of tactics, we get into the angled scenarios.

Angled Engagement

The turret remains the bottleneck weakness, so there’s still no change in competition’s ability to penetrate. Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is consistency, which is something we can clearly see from the earlier charts that the live client vehicle does not have. But we can assume if the driver is angled, they’re moving back and forth to throw off the enemy gunner’s aim, which allows the possibility that the shot will drift to the side and strike the more angled areas of the turret.

So now let’s go crazy and give the Chrysler K driver all the cards. They’re sidescraping against a building at an autobounce angle for their sponson, their lower glacis is hidden, they’re using their zippy 20 hp/t ratio to hide their shallow turret angles. We’d move to the 2nd turret face region as the weakpoint, for a typical standard round with 203 mm penetration?

View post on

Nearly identical to current headlong engagements in the open. Let’s be clear about this, in the most difficult scenario for opposing a Chrysler driver under historical stats, we get nearly the exact same groups that can handle the easiest head on scenario opposing a Chrysler driver in the live server.


What can we read into the Chrysler K from these statistics? On the live server, its presence in a head on engagement invalidates same and lower tiered standard ammunition and invites gold usage. It is also in a position where it cannot penetrate itself without gold ammunition, and in some areas require higher tiered cannons to penetrate it. In forward assaults it can be tough if it hides it’s lower plate, and in sidescraping it can be ridiculous as it requires a higher tiered vehicle to penetrate it.

If we applied the stats it was intended for back in 1946, what have we created? It can still assault positions and be relatively tough against the competition provided it keeps it’s lower glacis covered and uses it’s agility to keep the aim off it’s turret face. It can still be strong in sidescraping against buildings, but not practically immune to it’s own tier. It will rely on the skill of the player to know when and how to angle against cover and when to move out and beat the opponent’s shot, rather than utilize overwhelming armor thickness to force its competition to tap that ‘2’ key or die.

Perhaps there are other vectors to look into changing the makeup of this thing. The 105mm T5E1 could use a buff to standard ammunition, and there’s some historical justification for that as well. Just as there’s consistency problems with it’s APCR against the T32 however, so too would there be problems with making higher pen work on the T29 without changing that.

Nerfing Premiums

Getting Wargaming to move on rebalancing this tank is going to be the biggest roadblock. The simple reason is that Wargaming does not appear to want to nerf premiums ever again. First was the Type 59 in 2012, then the original Super Pershing fiasco in 2013, and the closest they have gotten since then is rebalancing the STA-2’s gun (which is perceived as a net buff) in 2016.

The chief argument for it is that players are entitled to the tank they chose to pay for, if it’s changed, they demand to be compensated. How can WG respond? They’re not going to release the cash, as the justification used during the Super Pershing changes was that players bought the gold value which became the premium tank package. Thus, Wargaming went with giving plenty of angry Super Pershing drivers a pile of gold in exchange. In either the short or long term however, this still hurts Wargaming economically. If they refunded the real cash, that draws out from immediate revenues for future operations, which cannot happen if WG can help it. If they release free gold into the servers in large quantities, then that can impact revenues in the long term because players are buying with gold instead of cash.

WG’s current remedy to the situation is to just pull it from sale and then dangle it out as wallet bait in the future. This is satisfactory for the players who own said tank, and it doesn’t require WG to fork out money and may even collect a little more, but it doesn’t change the state of the vehicle, it doesn’t change the players who have to face it, and repeated exposure can harm a player’s perception of the game in the long run.

I could go deeper into this but I’ll wrap things up with this final thought: look back at the core idea of balancing. It’s a simple give and take process for each vehicle added and maintained. If you remove the “take” for a specific vehicle however then the only way to truly address it further down the line is to give a blanket buff to everything it faces to achieve a nerf-by-proxy. That’s not a practical approach from a workload standpoint, it invites a cascade of power creep to the playerbase and puts more pressure on Wargaming’s balance department to “get it right” the first time. Mistakes have and will continue to happen, because WG’s employees are only human, but how long will Wargaming continue to operate with half of their tools at their disposal?

Here’s to hoping they reconsider their position soon.

Tank Inspector
Hunnicutt’s Firepower, World of Tanks Special Edition pp. 114, 209

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
Chrysler K: Can It Be Historical AND Balanced?

65 thoughts on “Chrysler K: Can It Be Historical AND Balanced?

  1. Mikosah says:

    The example of the STA-2 is good enough reason to believe that premiums can be simply given new buffs in exchange for new nerfs. In the case of the ‘anti-chrysler’ all it would take is cutting the cupola’s armor in half in exchange for buffing the AP pen to 215 or so and I think that would satisfy both parties.

      1. Mikosah says:

        If 250mm effective gets cut down to 125mm effective, if they hit the very center of the cupola then they’ll at least stand a chance. But even then, there’s not a single gun in the whole game I’d trust to land that shot consistently outside of close range. And even 125mm of effective armor can be chancy for stock pen values on a lot of tier 6s. But compare that to the current situation where tier 6s basically get told to go f*** themselves any time they have to engage a chrysler.

    1. I hoestly also don’t see a reason for any armor nerf here. It is good like it is.. If you remove any of it, the tank would be trash, like the Tiger 2 and the Caenarvon…

      Noone complains about the Immunity of a IS-3/110/Emil 1/T34… when hull down
      Why are people complaing about an immune side scraper?

      Yes, Tier 6 and 7 Tanks cannot penetrate it frontally, they need to flank. Nether can they penetrate a IS3, IS-6, O-Ho, Defender, 112, WZ-111… This is how it should be…with any heavy tank that ist not a mobile monster like the FCM

      A big problem are the maps in my opinion. On many flanking is just not possible and there is where the Crysler is OP. He can block that one way alone, or with a little help, just by sidescraping there. Many positions are also scrumbag(Arty shit) immune.

      With Tier8 vs Crysler, you press the 2 key and have a giant weakspot, that you can consistently penetrate from 300-400m away. For other tanks, you have smaller spots that are not so well armored. You can penetrate them with ap usually, but the chance to miss is also bigger.

      I’d rather fight a Crysler than an KV-5, IS-5, IS-3, O-HO, Defender, T34, Super Pershing, Liberte…

      It could need some mobility nerfs, though.

    2. Indeed that’s the trend for a while now. Frontal encounter, spam weak points if it has em … press 2 if it doesn’t. Not tactical maneuvering or map relocation etc. Heavies are more or less pointless on most maps, there a few where they do very well on but less and less as pen creeps up.

  2. Nya-chan Production says:

    “If a heavy tank uses its angling well and you can’t pen it, it’s a problem with the tank, since it should be penetrable even by silver ammo in that position”

    Seriously? Why have heavies in the game, then, if you make them penetrable by two tiers lower tanks and easily penetrable by same tiers? It won’t be able to hold a choke point at all.

    As a next step, I propose nerfing Maus to 200 effective armour while angling.

    1. suffywuffy says:

      Seriously… So a tier 8 tank that is invulnerable to t8 and 9 tanks while side scraping is balanced? It has a small cupola that would require good aim to hit, you know what? Let’s make it like 230+ effective, it has small machine gun ports? nah don’t model them… People aren’t complaining about it’s upper plate or turret front, they’re complaining that it’s lower plate, unmodeled machine gun ports and cupola cannot be penned by same tier tanks let alone lower tier ones.

      Hell even the busted Maus can have it’s lower plate penned by standard tier 10 med tank ammo especially if it’s driver is a retard, try penning a Chrysler frontally with t8 med tank standard ammo anywhere even if that thing is being played by the biggest moron on the server, same story with the defender.

      I had the perfect example the other day, I was playing my Thunderbolt, you know the tank with the weak turret area’s and machine gun port weak spot that can be penned by lower tier tanks, and a defender decided to yolo me whilst I was in the low ground. I loaded gold, shot up into his totally deangled and de sloped lower plate, bounce, bounce bounce. Now any non tier 8 prem I would have at least penned, tiger 2 lower plate? 110? is3? Caernarvon? t32? all pennable. The only non premium things I would have struggled with is an o-ho, another unbalanced tank, borderline broken when top tier, totally useless when not top tier gg balancing, and a kv-4 which is so slow and bad in other regards I could have out played it.

      At least the VK t8 heavy has a lower plate that can be penned by lower tiers and is slow, unlike both the defender and Chrysler. If you don’t think the new t8 heavy premiums are a problem then I can only ascertain that either you only play tier 9 and 10 where penning them isn’t as much of an issue or those premiums are the only tanks you’re capable of playing well in…

      1. Anonymous says:

        You want to be able to pen a Tier 8 with every tier 6. This is bolloks. You are in a Tier 6 which is 2 Tiers lower. So you should bounce with every shot in the front. Stop dreaming

      2. lower front hull of defender and chryler gf can pent by almost all tier 8 9 x, also, more 90% of random battle from chrysler, edelwis, nameless, are againts tanks tier 8 9 x…. so, all of them isnt OP tanks….. ^^

      3. mattbrix02 says:

        You see. the problem here is it doesnt have any immediate weakspot when sidescraping. Even we hit the “SAID” weakspot commander’s cupola is hard to penetrate, it only damages the viewing scope with no HP damage which is very-very-very frustrating. I just stay aware from it and screw up someone else that is not chrysler’s front.

      4. betabug says:

        I can’t understand the whining: the machinedeck is very vulnerable to HE and burns like hell…

      5. bbmoose says:

        You should be able to pen a tier 8 heavy with a tier 6 if that tier 8 is being played in a bad way. You can hide a lower plate, armor should require skill to make it work. The Lowe can be penned by everything and his mum through the LFP, but if you know how to play hulldown or sidescrape, that tank is an absolute beast. Skill should always be rewarded.

    2. Mikosah says:

      Consider what the ability to ‘hold a choke point’ actually means for gameplay. It means blocking movement and slowing down the flow of things. Besides, there has always been another way to represent durability and that’s hit points. The heavies don’t need to be invincible to do their job.

  3. Vedranooo says:

    Balancing is good, but nerfing prem tanks is not done. When i buy a prem-tank i want it to be like it is, you just can’t make it worse than it was. If they start nerfing they should give you the option to sell it and get your money or you accept the new stats and hold it.

    1. madogthefirst says:

      They can make it worse for any reason they want with no compensation at all. It is all in the thing you must agree to every patch before you can play.

      1. Anonymous says:

        But in the EU you have the right to get compensated. It doesn’t matter what you agree after every patch when it is not in line with the EU-Right. So if they nerfe Premium-Tanks you have the right to get compensated in the EU. THerefore they are careful with that

      2. Hopefully you will never run a business. Success would not last long for you..

        The unwritten law in ANY business:
        doing shit that customers don’t like (Nerfing Prems without comensation) -> makes paying customers angry -> they don’t buy new shit from you -> no money for you

      3. Nevermind says:

        @madogthefirst, you clearly have NO IDEA how companies make money or business work. The moment people louse confidence in your product they stop buying and then you don’t have a free to play any more. Trust me WG does not put up with all the crying and winning out of the goodness of their hearts.

  4. Jerry says:

    Prem tanks will always have power creep because people need a reason to buy the tank. If I already own 2 tier 8 US heavy premiums, why do I need a third? Balanced premiums are premiums that will not sell.

    1. jeffrey6046 says:

      Meanwhile premium tanks are breaking the matchmaker.
      These days you see more premium tier 8 tanks then regular tech tree.

    2. Jerry says:

      You might not like the observation, but, I see Chrysler GFs a fair bit on the NA server. People voted with their money. Enough people didn’t care that the Chrysler GF is OP as hell and hurts the game balance overall, they bought it anyway. WG is in this to make money, to cover the cost of the game, and to make profit. (Look at the new anime tanks on the Asia server, for example.) If you don’t keep that in the back of your head while dealing with them and looking at their decisions, you’re always going to be disappointed.

      As long as the game is fun for enough people, their monetization department will always have the final say. (Look what they did to Blitz for God’s sake.)

    3. You do realize it is possible to make unique interesting thanks in the same class right. Best example would be french premium mediums. There is not a single reason to not want a CDC/Lorraine if you already have the ravioli. Cause even though they are the same class they are very different vehicles. What I do agree is that it is much harder to make money that way. Sadly there are plenty of players who are perfectly okay with pay 2 win content and if it’s possible to buy the best tank why wouldn’t you? My suggestion requires effort, the way they currently do it is supereasy, but very importantly bad for the game.

  5. joel fernando da silva milhazes says:

    they shouldnt have realesed the tank so frontaly op, if they had it realesed whit a properly balanced frontal armor this shouldnt ever became issued that they had and turn some of the contributers against them

  6. Never mind says:

    Sorry mate but what an incredible wait of time and energy. Damn get a girl friend. IF you wanted historical accuracy you should play War Thunder or some other game. IF you can not pen a tank head on, use the “F-word” and FLANK!
    Why does anyone care? “Pay to Win” you say… WoT has always been free to play but pay to win. When I started gold ammo was only bought with gold. Realistically if you want to grind tanks and play tier 10 you have to either have premium tanks for credits and/ or run a premium account.

    1. Katyusha454 says:

      How exactly do you expect anyone to flank when all the maps are based on corridors with very few ways to outmaneuver anyone? And when the few possible ways to maneuver are almost always covered by another enemy tank? The biggest thing that breaks the Chrysler is map design, not the tank itself.

      1. Nevermind says:

        As to the issue of corridor maps, well that is another issue all together, and not the K-tanks fault. WG has said they want pretty maps not new maps this year.

    2. Nevermind says:

      Spot on assessment. its amazing how much hate you have gotten for speaking the truth. As for flanking, If I see a hull down HT that I KNOW I can not pen, I bugger off and go kill his team mate. I think its called understanding how things work.
      +1 to you.

  7. Me says:

    I love engaging Chrysler. Players are so confident o armour. But my old Isu152 will penetrate this tank in any position

  8. Rombat says:

    leave the crysler suck anyway…who want to shoot with premium ammo will shoot premium ammo it doesn’t need any excuse of low pen…if this one has low pen on normal ammo ask kv-5, is-6, wz-111 how it feels…and why people first think is i must pen him frontally and not, i’m gone track it and i’m gone to flank it and i will fuck his as…?

  9. Wayneable says:

    If they where to nerf the armor like you suggest, all that i would ask for is a buff to the gun, so that one does not have to spam gold in it. To me that would be a fair trade

    1. Legiondude says:

      Like I said, I’d be up for buffing the gun….provided it’s done with consistency, as opposed to the current scenario where the gold ammo is much more powerful on the premium than the researchable edition

  10. Max says:

    Nice article. What i’m missing though is a comparison to similar tier 8 tanks like the japanese or new german heavy and some a little different tanks as well as the other new prems (defender, liberté) just to put things into perspective.
    I guess that would be a lot of numbers, but since you now have all the averages you need and all the excel files, it should at least not take ages now – and you wouldn’t have to write text, all i need is numbers 😀 Any chance on that?

    1. Legiondude says:

      Part of the tedium of writing this article was that I had to compile the Excel tables. It would be a significant step easier for in game vehicles without dealing with theoretical changes to armor because then I can just reference

      But then there’s lining up ALL the tier 8 heavies, that’s going to be the lion’s share of the work.

      I’ll consider it for future work

  11. Paxson says:

    Just own 1, my conclusion, Tier 8 – 10 dont have any probs with this tanks.

    I dont care that Tier 6 and 7 have to shot into the side or back.

    And with this gun against Tier 9/10 for most HT you have to aim or nedd gold too.

    If armor would be nerfed, gun should be the same like a T 34 😀

    In my opinion, it is not a pay to win tank. maybe against Tier 7/8. But IS 3… should be fine too.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Just drive a japanese heavy, they can pen any tank at any angle at any distance and deal 300-500 dmg every 14 seconds or so. Seriously, there are far more broken tanks in the game than the Chrysler K. Swedes have impenetrable turrets WITH an autoloader, new german heavies are almost completely immune to standard rounds frontally, the japanese heavies negate the need for aiming or penetration, and sky cancer… well, enough said. The Chrysler trades having a good gun for pretty good armor, if it can hide its very wide lower plate. I can tell you that most tier 8s do not have a problem penning me frontally with standard ammo, even when angled, and most TDs at tier 8 and above have no issues with either the glacis or turret. The mobility is merely average, and the sides and rear are total butter if over angled or flanked. The Chrysler is a 1-trick pony that will quickly eat shit when not top tier, or fighting more than one opponent at tier 8, or facing any light tank that can outmaneuver the sluggish turret and hull. Please end this Chrysler Crisis, and accept that most of the people who are complaining are doing so because they can’t press the 2 key and autopen the thickest parts of the armor 100% of the time.

    1. Anonymous says:

      This pretty much covers the Chrysler Chaos. The only people screaming about upgrading the gun are GK buyers. Caveat emptor. Much ado about nothing.

      “Swedes have impenetrable turrets WITH an autoloader, new german heavies are almost completely immune to standard rounds frontally, the japanese heavies negate the need for aiming or penetration, and sky cancer”… This is a fair statement.
      The real OP tanks are in the tech-tree.

      WoT is not a historical simulator. In the end to 99% of the player base it is a pew-pew game

  13. armando30 says:

    while I do agree the Chrysler K needs to be nerfed for historical values I disagree in the assumption of the UFP being 133mm specially since Hunnicutt is used as reference and he clearly states «7 inches at 30 degrees from the vertical on the front plate», there’s no reference for it being as low as 133mm
    I would wait until someone outside of WG has access to official documents with the actual proposal details because using the tanks Chrysler had manufactured prior designing the K we can say not a single one had less UFP armour than on the LFP, all we can assume for now is that both plates would be 177,8mm
    if we think about the tank configuration it would not be too wrong to assume the UFP angle was not specified because it was subject to change depending on how they would actually be able to mount the engine in the front while keeping the projected height, it could end too tal which would mean either reducing the UFP angle or trying to tilt the engine (which is not advised)

    WG has the actual values and can make it historical, the other way is someone with archive access to reveal it, there would be a third option in asking Chrysler through e-mail but they would probably laugh at it (or not even read it)

    1. Legiondude says:

      Hunnicutt lists the “front plate” being 7 inches thick, but also at 30 degrees offset

      That’s the lower plate, not the upper one

  14. StevoMS says:

    First, Id like to say that i do believe that Chrysler needs changes, both nerfs and buff to gun, but nothing as drastic in this article. Second to all those who say ‘just flank’ are correct but do not consider the presence of other enemy tanks. It is almost never a one on one engagement, meaning if you try to flank, another tank will be there to shoot you. flanking is always the best option when it is SAFE to do so, for any tank. Im not saying this tank is undefetable in a 50m slugging match, but it is stronger than most other t8 heavies in such a scenario, so a frontal weakspot that can be hit while the tank is sidescraping or whatever, like a machine gunnport or weakened cupola would be welcome because most other tier 8 heavies have such (110, is-6, is-3, t-34)

  15. Anonymous says:

    WoT does not nerf premium tanks… it is an unwritten but very real policy… you guys who want to nerf the Chryler can just save your pixel ink, it ain’t happenin’.

  16. My poor kv5 can’t do shit against this thing…well it can’t do shit against mist tier 8s now….not to mention the fact that pref mm is useless now since tier 6s will face only 3 tier 8s. But yeah to stay on topic I think mg mounts should be modeled and that would be a nice way to dmg it. I mean kv5 has r2d2 modelled….

  17. tolic1988 - EU says:

    The only thing I can tell you about this Chrysler shit(I bought one) is that it meets T10-T9 4 out of five games, and those tanks(especially TD’s) have no problem penning your tank anywhere.
    Oh, and the fifth game is usually full T8.
    Last 50 games I encountered T6 2 times, both on open maps.
    While I agree this tank is OP in T6-T7 matches on city maps, other than that it’s pretty shitty, way worse than T32/Patriot.
    Maybe some other players that own this tank can share more, but while playing any other T8 premiums(although T8 MM is broken atm) I still end-up in T6-T7 matches sometimes, this tank gets none, so I guess this is one way to balance it WG, so GG

  18. I’m sorry but all i see here is crying. A HT is supposed to be fucking heavy. Just let it be and move on. I was sick of IS-3 being the only turret baws around the game. Learn to move on

  19. wfschepel says:

    The proposed nerfs are insane. I would like to see weakspots on this thing, but the base armour values are fine. Anybody in a T6 medium parked in front of a T8 heavy deserves everything he gets. Heavies are not meant to be damage pinatas for lower tiers. And, as mentioned by others, compared to other T8 heavies the Chrysler is actually rather UP. Effective armour is not that different, but the C-K gets a weak gun whereas most of the competition gets far more effective guns.

  20. z33dho says:

    Wow, reading all the bull…. about how OP this tank is. WoT is not a RPG, it is not Super Mario, it is a TEAM game. A TEAM or even a medium skilled PLATOON can easily deal with this tank. Arty is still in the game and who has ever heard of HE shells??? It is in game for a reason and you do not need to do 600+ dmg each shot to it to make him retreat. 5-6 HE shells and he already has some module damage, crew knocked out… and by taking damage his confidence is evaporating. Why do people think, that this game is just about frontal engagement??? Think people, think and when you do this, good things happen.
    Btw, this tanks gun is more than good, does not need any buffs. Just saying.
    Btw2, it is never the tank it is always the player that makes things happen.

  21. Anonymous says:

    I own a Chrysler K….and it is NOT OP (when comparing it to the Defender or Skorpion G), which my WIN average can attest to! It does have good armor “IF” you angle it correctly, and the gun is weak in higher tier battles. Would not have purchased it if there wasnt all this hype about it, and if I had a chance NOT to purchase it now, knowing what I know by playing it, I would have not purchased it.

  22. XM177E4 says:

    I am genuinely surprised at the armor numbers in the first table there. The values posted give rise to some interesting implications. If those numbers are accurate as posted, this would mean that even modern vehicles would have serious trouble penetrating this WG-made abomination from the front.

    In order to reliably penetrate the tank from its strongest front points, you would have to be using a vehicle of at least tier 8 with either tandem HEAT or APFSDS.

    To penetrate with HEAT projectiles, you would need to be at least tier 8 using tandem charge ATGMs such as the 125mm Refleks on the BMP-3M Dragun (750mm).

    To penetrate with AP or armor-piercing projectiles in general, again you need to be at least tier 8 using APFSDS such as the C1 Ariete’s 120mm L/44 (700mm), or the T-90A’s 125mm 2A46M (720mm).

    Though how the Chrysler K would do trying to even scratch these vehicles is another matter. Make what you will of that.

Leave a Reply