Super Conqueror & M4A2 “Loza” Stats

Good day everyone,

Some stats for the upcoming Super Conqueror, as well as a new premium Lend-Lease Sherman being introduced as part of the Tank Aces series, having been commanded by Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Fyodorovich Loza.

Super Conqueror


Tier: 10
HP: 2,350
Engine Power: 950hp
Weight: 73 t
Power to Weight: 13.01 hp/t
Speed: +34.3/-12 kph
Hull Traverse: 26°/s
Turret Traverse: 33.4°/s
Terrain Resistance: 1.055/1.247/2.205
Hull Armor: 152/76/38 mm
Turret Armor: 279/89/70 mm
View Range: 400 m
Signal Range: 782 m
Crew: 4

Gun: 120 mm Gun L1A1
DMG: 400/400/515
Penetration: 259/326/120 mm
DPM: 2,691.2
Rate of Fire: 6.728
Reload: 8.918 s
Accuracy: 0.316
Aim Time: 1.92 s
Depression/Elevation: -7°/+15°


M4A2 Loza


Tier: 6
HP: 750
Engine Power: 410hp
Weight: 34.1 t
Power to Wieght: 12.02 hp/t
V max: + 51,4 / -18 km / h
Hull Traverse: 44 ° / s
Turret Traverse: 38 ° / s
Terrain Resistances: 0.9 / 1 / 1.5
Hull Armor: 63.5 / 38.1 / 38.1 mm
Turret Armor: 63.5 / 63.5 / 63.5 mm
View Range: 370 m
Signal Range: 450 m
Crew: 5

Gun: 76mm Gun M1A2
DMG: 115/115/185
Penetration: 128/177/38 mm
DPM: 2.090
Rate of Fire: 18.18
Reload: 3.3 s
Accuracy: 0.4
Aim Time: 2.3 s
Depression/Elevation: -10°/+25 °

Liked it? Take a second to support jerryatrick53 on Patreon!
Super Conqueror & M4A2 “Loza” Stats

42 thoughts on “Super Conqueror & M4A2 “Loza” Stats

  1. zombietropa says:

    I could understand the 3.45s reload on the Thunderbolt, but 3.3s reload on what is pretty much a standard Sherman (that has worse hp/t)? Ouch…

    1. zombietropa says:

      It is pretty much identical to the regular Easy 8, and that doesn’t get pref MM. Neither do any other of the tier 6 mediums. So why should the Loza?

      1. Jurrunio says:

        It’s a lot slower. It has slightly better terrain resistance but that wont help the 20% decrease in engine power.

    1. OrigamiChik3n says:

      I’m pretty sure it’s the clan emblem of the guy who made these screenshots. He used to watermark his screenshots with the same little pony.

  2. Aww. Super conq doesn’t seem so unique after all. I was kinda hoping it gets the fv laser gun with that dpm. Would be funny.

    Also not even 10 degrees of gun depression?

    On the plus side this will be quite nice when hulldown. All in all an ok tier 10 it seems.

    1. For me Super Conqueror is just better T110E5. Maybe american heavy is slightly faster and have better lower plate but brit have awesome DPM and spaced armor which I think will be unpenetrable from front. Didn’t do exact math but with modules and crew it should be around 7.5s reload, maybe even faster. But I don’t think we need buffed T110E5 in the game. FV215b maybe wasn’t anyone favorite but it was unique.

      Also I’m a bit worried what they said about brit heavies changes. They stated that heavy should feel like heavy. Personally, I like to see on battlefield more mobile armored vehicles which support meds.

      1. I was only mentioning as it’s kind of standard on most British tanks.

        Historical is completely irrelevant in this game. There is nothing historical about it other than the fact that it is loosely based around the ww2 era. Even that is bent with tanks from before and tanks from as late as 1965.

    1. Well the alternative is OP broken shit like the defende.r I don’t mind clones as long as they arebalanced. Release a thousand copies. Don’t care. But you release even 1 defender style tank….breaks the game.

  3. M4A2 Loza

    nice easy tank for Farming with ‘ladder MM’ for OP tier 8 tanks like yum, yum

    nice farming for any Tier 7 tanks like come here little puny tank

    the T34 85M will ‘feast’ as never before farming WN8 on this crap new Premium USA Tier 6

    M4A2 Loza, looks very like a Premium Tier 6 from way back in 2013,

    go WG go WG go, go, go!

    1. zombietropa says:

      So when WG releases a prem that looks balanced, they doing a bad job?

      And when has the T-34-85M been a WN8 farmer?

      And T7 and T8 vics are better then tier 6? This is fucking news to me. And before you complain about the MM screwing over tier 6, at least its the old MM, when you could be the only tier 6 in a mainly tier 8 game.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I always wondered why WG didn’t release a Soviet Lend-Lease M4 Sherman earlier. Would have been a very easy premium to make. They could even make a Lend-Lease M3 Lee or Grant if they wanted to.

  5. banjoman150 says:

    It all depends on how well the armor on the super Conqueror is. If the lower plate is still only 76 mm it will not be a “heavy” heavy tank. That being said i like how on all british HTs the turret ring armor got buffed to a degree that enables them to sidescrape without making the turretring “cheecks” a weakspot. If this gets carried over tot he FV215B i would like this tank even more.

  6. Bill grey says:

    U guys are forgetting its a russian sherman…
    It could be hit with a 300mm shell, that would do a 0dmg tracking, or pass through the ammo rack, without hitting anything…

  7. Must say Im looking forward to the British tanks getting a buff.Pity the Centurion 1 didnt get a gun buff either but thats WG for you.If you look at the tier 6 premiums out there Im talking about the old ones like the Pz.IV S.It doesnt even stand a chance against the new tier 8’s WG is rolling out on a regular basis.Instead of rolling out premiums all the time and launching patches every month WG should go back and rebalance the whole game from tier 1 up.Id rather have a patch once every 3 months thats worth it than playing a game that needs to be repaired.

    1. zombietropa says:

      Like the Foch 155, those who already own the 215b will get the Super Conquer for free, and have the FV215b as a reward vehicle. The 215b will be removed from the tech tree.

  8. Tier 5 Premium yes, 6 no – has nothing over the Fury or the Tbolt [both of which struggle in MM already]. They can be played well and due to there struggling they make good stat padders for premium spammers – but there still very mediocre especially for real money.

Leave a Reply