WaterDragon629

IS-4M - Questions, Information, Gameplay

In Gaijin we trust to keep tanks historically acurate and tier them adequetly. Patience young one and we will see how these tanks perform.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about APCR and HEAT rounds? In the tank videos we have seen their have been 3 rounds to choose from while the one on the left and right consist of 80% of all rounds the one in the middle is only 20% so either its smoke rounds (meh) or APCR/HEAT which would change alot in the fight beetween these two.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that this so historical accurate game is gonna put tanks of different eras up against each other (without even a need to do so), you can bend the facts as much as you want to: A Tiger II never faced a IS-4, just like the Me262 never got shot down by Sabres or what-not... neither did a Ar234 become useless because it was intercepted by Mig-9 etc.

 

For the sake of playability? Sure... I chose this game because I expected REALISTIC matchups based on hard data, not something created to please various camps of fanboys. If a Bf109 wasn't good during a time of it's service, it should be reflected in game no matter how much the Bf109 fans b!tch about it, and same should go for everything else.

 

But no, in every thread about Balance, some come up with "reliability", others with numbers of units build/send into service or whatever if it helps them in the case - on a vehicle they love, things are different. That's why there can be only one way:

Build the Stuff as it was in reality and put it up according to when it was in service - and if prototypes etc. make it, then ALL countrys can have the prototypes of the same date. But stop this crap where nations that may or may not be the "worst" get buffed with unrealistic stuff to please the crowd.

 

As long as it remains like this, Planetside 2 is a better WW3 Simulator than WT for WW2/Korea.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-54 will have a gun with better penning power but worse HE shells than the D25.

The Panther2 also has better hp per ton and comparable front armour (correct if wrong)

But the T-54 will have better off road speed, better turret protection but less rof and ammo

Panther II has nowhere close to the frontal armor of the IS-4.

UFP of IS-4 is 140mm at 61 degrees. over 300mm of protection against KE rounds.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about APCR and HEAT rounds? In the tank videos we have seen their have been 3 rounds to choose from while the one on the left and right consist of 80% of all rounds the one in the middle is only 20% so either its smoke rounds (meh) or APCR/HEAT which would change alot in the fight beetween these two.

The majority of the ammo that would be taken would be standard AP ammo. There is also standard HE rounds. And there are only certain guns that fired HEAT, while APCR was more common.

 

Heat is horrible verses sloped armor, it's most effective against flat armor, such as the Tiger I, or the sides hull armor of other tanks. And it's almost useless against spaced armor that the USSR used on alot of their tanks later on.

 

APCR would be the most "equalizing" in a way. But neither would damage each other from average tank on tank engagement ranges.

 

Panther II has nowhere close to the frontal armor of the IS-4.

UFP of IS-4 is 140mm at 61 degrees. over 300mm of protection against KE rounds.

yea. No gun the on the Panther's could damage a IS-4 from the front.

 

Much less a T-54 with even MORE exagerated sloped armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the ammo that would be taken would be standard AP ammo. There is also standard HE rounds. And there are only certain guns that fired HEAT, while APCR was more common.

 

Heat is horrible verses sloped armor, it's most effective against flat armor, such as the Tiger I, or the sides hull armor of other tanks. And it's almost useless against spaced armor that the USSR used on alot of their tanks later on.

 

APCR would be the most "equalizing" in a way. But neither would damage each other from average tank on tank engagement ranges.

 

yea. No gun the on the Panther's could damage a IS-4 from the front.

 

Much less a T-54 with even MORE exagerated sloped armor.

IS-4 has better armor than the T-54. T-54 is 100mm at 60 degrees, or 120mm at 60 degrees for earlier models.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panther II has nowhere close to the frontal armor of the IS-4.

UFP of IS-4 is 140mm at 61 degrees. over 300mm of protection against KE rounds.

I was talking about the T-54 and the Panther2.....dude...

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS-4 won't be so out of context problem, actually, considering that IS-4 uses same gun as IS-2 and IS-3 (IIRC, 122mm D-25T), which it had such poor penetrating capabilities. 

So, technically, any Tiger II with 8.8cm gun or JagtTiger with 12.8cm or Tiger II with 10.5cm gun should deal with IS4 just fine. 

However, the problem appears: T-54. 

Panther 2 will be fine vs T-54. think he-162 vs mig 9.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panther 2 will be fine vs T-54. think he-162 vs mig 9.

Not really. Panther 2 has inferior armor layout to the T-54, the 88mm cannot penetrate the front glacis of the T-54 at any range and the turret can be penetrated up to 600m or so if hit right. The T-54 firing BR-412D has similar performance to the 88mm L71 firing Pzg 39. 

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Panther 2 has inferior armor layout to the T-54, the 88mm cannot penetrate the front glacis of the T-54 at any range and the turret can be penetrated up to 600m or so if hit right. The T-54 firing BR-412D has similar performance to the 88m firing Pzg 39. 

And the T-54 gets lower ground pressure about the same PtW ratio and my get better performance when cross country.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will have to see. Not terribly enthusiastic about these postwars (or 105mm Tiger IIs, what is that I don't even).

 

That said, flanking will be much more effective in WT then in that other game, because there is no "you take 1/15th of my HP and then I turn my turret and shoot you in the face" nonsense. You get penetrated in the sides, good odds you're outright dead / disabled.

 

That alone reduces the horrible annoyance of facing superior vehicles (ala world of tanks, where you get to meet things you cannot penetrate from the front and when you penetrate from the sides, you do bugger all due to stupid HP/tier system).

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Panther 2 has inferior armor layout to the T-54, the 88mm cannot penetrate the front glacis of the T-54 at any range and the turret can be penetrated up to 600m or so if hit right. The T-54 firing BR-412D has similar performance to the 88mm L71 firing Pzg 39. 

 

 

what? the 100mm production T-54 or the 120mm Test T-54? the 100mm can be penned by a 88L71 the 120 one will be a bid of a problem. so either the T-54 can move but penned trough the front, or it can't move and be sort fo safe from the front.

 

pick your poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what? the 100mm production T-54 or the 120mm Test T-54? the 100mm can be penned by a 88L71 the 120 one will be a bid of a problem. so either the T-54 can move but penned trough the front, or it can't move and be sort fo safe from the front.

 

pick your poison.

No it can't

100mm at 60 degrees vs 88mm APCBC

318mm effective protection.

 

120mm at 60 degress vs 88mm APCBC

398mm effective protection.

 

Penetration of 88mm L71 APCBC at 100m against a vertical plate

232mm

 

And the first production variant of the T-54 had a 120mm glacis plate btw.

 

This theoretical data is also supported by Yugoslav ballistic tests which showed the glacis couldn't be penetrated by 88mm APCBC and the turret could be penetrated up to ~600m

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RoflSeal, any info about other soviet tanks vs german shells, what armor thickness they would get with same calculations?

Frontally, T-54, IS-4 are very well protected frontally vs period ammunition. 

 

The only things that can penetrate the T-54 glacis in this era are 90mm M348 HEAT round (if it doesn't fail) and also 20pdr APDS Mk 3 (certain penetration under 350yds, possible penetration under 500yds).

 

IS-4 is a complete monster frontally, it was designed to be invulnerable to the German 12.8cm after all, the only thing to me that seems to be vulnerable is the 160mm/40deg lower plate which is vulnerable to 20pdr APDS mk 3 at short range. Possibly the 200mm plate infront of the driver aswell.

 

IS-3 is behind these two in terms of protection, it should theoretically have better protection then the T-54 but design defects caused by ill fitting plates in the prow produced a lot of tension and potential cracking. As far as I am aware, it performed well against calibers under 100mm, however including this calibre and above, there were cases of plate and welding failure.

For example in one ballistic test, the IS-3 hull held well against the 88mm Pak43, but against the 122mm D-25T, on one hit, weld seems between the drivers hatch and the two prows cracked, and half the driver's hatch was blasted off. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontally, T-54, IS-4 are very well protected frontally vs period ammunition. 

 

The only things that can penetrate the T-54 glacis in this era are 90mm M348 HEAT round (if it doesn't fail) and also 20pdr APDS Mk 3 (certain penetration under 350yds, possible penetration under 500yds).

 

IS-4 is a complete monster frontally, it was designed to be invulnerable to the German 12.8cm after all, the only thing to me that seems to be vulnerable is the 160mm/40deg lower plate which is vulnerable to 20pdr APDS mk 3 at short range. Possibly the 200mm plate infront of the driver aswell.

 

IS-3 is behind these two in terms of protection, it should theoretically have better protection then the T-54 but design defects caused by ill fitting plates in the prow produced a lot of tension and potential cracking. As far as I am aware, it performed well against calibers under 100mm, however including this calibre and above, there were cases of plate and welding failure.

For example in one ballistic test, the IS-3 hull held well against the 88mm Pak43, but against the 122mm D-25T, on one hit, weld seems between the drivers hatch and the two prows cracked, and half the driver's hatch was blasted off. 

 

and how would said frontal plate hold to say impacts a 10.5 cm HE shells fired by the STuH 42?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and how would said frontal plate hold to say impacts a 10.5 cm HE shells fired by the STuH 42?

Most likely holds without a problem.

HE from 12,8cm PaK 44 L/55 of the Jagdtiger on the other hand might cause problems after consecutive hits.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely holds without a problem.

HE from 12,8cm PaK 44 L/55 of the Jagdtiger on the other hand might cause problems after consecutive hits.

 

dident the dev diary mention you needed 120mm+ in order for HE to be effective at blasting tanks apart?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dident the dev diary mention you needed 120mm+ in order for HE to be effective at blasting tanks apart?

a while back in "tanks tech trees released" topic 1 guy posted 3 posts filled with the story behind US ordinance development past june 44 providing plenty genuine documents from the time period (truly fascinating stuff).

 

In one of those documents you could find tests of 90mm guns againts captured Panther tanks.

based on the documents 90mm HE was quite enough to significantly dent the frontal armor (80mm plate at 55degrees) and couse a good amount of spalling inside the tank.

 

Possibly in the same posts (although I am not certain of that, it might be just a story going around these forums) there was a report of sherman crews succeeding to defeat a Tiger through prolonged pepering it with 75mm HE shells. Key word here is "prolonged".

 

All this said while big HE shells could be extremly effective as AT weapons in real life judging from the gameplay footage so far they will not be such in game as tanks appear to stay operational with multiple crew members "wounded".

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a while back in "tanks tech trees released" topic 1 guy posted 3 posts filled with the story behind US ordinance development past june 44 providing plenty genuine documents from the time period (truly fascinating stuff).

 

In one of those documents you could find tests of 90mm guns againts captured Panther tanks.

based on the documents 90mm HE was quite enough to significantly dent the frontal armor (80mm plate at 55degrees) and couse a good amount of spalling inside the tank.

 

Possibly in the same posts (although I am not certain of that, it might be just a story going around these forums) there was a report of sherman crews succeeding to defeat a Tiger through prolonged pepering it with 75mm HE shells. Key word here is "prolonged".

 

All this said while big HE shells could be extremly effective as AT weapons in real life judging from the gameplay footage so far they will not be such in game as tanks appear to stay operational with multiple crew members "wounded".

You have to remember that German have very low quality steel that prone to cracking and spalling.

HE vs USSR and Allies steel, not so much. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the front glacis of the is4m has one universal armour value and does not model the drivers hatch properly. Ive heard that it is supposed to be 200mm thick at a worse angle but I could not find ANY documents at all. Here are some screenshots to show what I mean. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lower left side of turrent ''right side for driver'' seem be also to have issues. i could penetrate it with first panther using stock ammo.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.