You misunderstood me in so many ways that I will summarize my most important statements since it seems you doesn't read all I posted but looking a every of my sentences individually without context.
That is simply false, 76mm AP's AOE are identical to 75mm AP rounds while the gun fire faster.
Shocking news, I said that they have the same AOE profile a few post above. The important difference is, that the AP shell of 75mm it is the shell meant to fight vehicles/tanks. The real AI shell (HE) has a strong AI value. You have to switch to fight infantry as intended at shell switch mechanic.
76mm AP rounds is on of the best, from all around rounds, in the AT role among medium tank. Only T-34/85 has better penetration but with lower ROF.
I would exchange AP from 76mm versus HE from 75mm or standard shell of PZIV any time. Imagine how op 76mm would be if the AP shell would be the PZIV shell. So don't tell me it is one of the best allround shell, it just sucks at fighting infantry.
Just because HAVP round are superior that does not mean they are bad.
Why having a shell switch if both shells are better at AT than AI. What is the meaning of it?
The fact it can penetrate Tigers with 100% does make it "suck" unless in your opinion PzIV gun "suck badly" vs anything with armor better T-34/85
You misunderstand me again. The PZIV shell would be soo good for 76mm, it doesn't have to penetrate Tiger with AP, it has to be better at AI to make shell switching between HVAP and AP a real decision.
The round are simply good (for units of it class/role) and the unit can fight both tank and infatry with them effectively.
Can fight infantry effectively? Again: Worst AOE profile of all generalist tanks (shared with E8 and AP from 75mm of course).
Funny that you make this suggestion because then it would have to switch rounds depending on target which according to you is a "Big disadvantage".
According to you are suggesting a nerf.
No it is not, if both shells perform accordingly a little stronger. Just please read what I wrote a few posts above or I won't answer anymore.
Soviet 76mm never lost the crew, the USF version simply gained one.
It got lost as the tank was ported from USF to Soviet without a compensation. Tank crews are part of price/performance of USF tanks. That isn't so hard to understand.
You mean the Soviet faction has no use for T-34/85 or KV-1?
The problem with your mentality is that you are comparing a medium main battle tank with TD and expecting the MBT to be superior AT role. That would simply be broken.
Oh man, I said more than once that T-34/85 and KV-1 are a strong addition to SU-85 since they shield better (survivability) and fight infantry very effictively, that is the one thing Su-85 lacks. Soviet need no AT tank that is worse than Su-85 in every single way, they need a tank that supplements the SU-85 like T34/85 or KV-1. Please apply the effort to not only read my last post but maybe the 3 to 4 above it. There you will find the answers to your arguments already.
The 105mm for example would be a very good edition to Soviet roster at Land Lease, the 76mm with current performance just isn't because it adds something that Soviets simply don't need.