Case for Merging T20/23

FaustianQ, on 01 February 2011 - 01:32 PM, said: I've been a long time lurker, with but of all 3 posts and no avatar, but allow me to assure you, this is not a troll. I will admit immediately I play rarely, having only recently gotten to T7's and I tend to play either poorly or rather lukewarmly, and I have a predisposition towards mediums, so there might be some slight bias in my suggestion (plea?) and my lack of experience with actually using the some of the tanks I am describing - so understand most of this is from a purely statistical perspective and getting pounded on by them.
Allow me to explain why I bothered to put this up - Post #164
In the words of Overlord - "T-20 and T-23 will remain as tier 7 and 8 respectively, if needed they will be buffed. 90mm T15E2 might be added for one of them or to both."
Yes, the post is made Jan 14th, so I am a bit late to that, but I since no one made a an attempt at reasonable refutation, then I'll try. To be honest, I politely disagree with Overlord and assert, both from a current balance perspective and a timeline one, that the T20 prevents the American medium tree from being competitive.
The T20 pushes the T23 (which could also be named M27, although that might confuse people) and M26 up a tier and places them in fights where, although the guns planned may do decently, the tank itself is comparatively inferior, and prevents the M48 from appearing as the US T9 medium, which would be of equal capability to both the British Centurion and Russian T-54/55 at the very least.
Lets look at a table really quickly and see how the US and USSR mediums would square up if we dropped the M26/T23 one tier.
...