Create a gap between ww2 and cold war vehicles and tech

[Panter2005]

Stats dump, but not a lot of arguments.

Both M48 and T-54 have a lot of armor, but it is negated by HEAT. No armor, best armor.

T-54 and M48 have more much more firepower when they can pen with APHE. On M48 though APHE isn’t really practical, because of how low the penetration is. T-54 is quite unique in that regard, it didn’t get rid of a very powerful APHE, but still sometimes APHE just isn’t enough.

When APHE isn’t enough, their firepower becomes comparable. M48’s 90mm HEAT deals less damage and has less pen, but has better reload. T-54 has slightly better reload, but also slightly less pen and damage. Pen isn’t that important here, as it does the job for all tanks compared here, only M48 might struggle sometimes.

All tanks have comparable mobility.

In therms of mobility, this is the 1 area where M48 stands out, being much faster in practice than T-54, while also having good turret and hull traverse speed. However, M48 is also the biggest.

I don’t know exactly how Ikv 103 handles, but it’s probably overall the same as M48, having higher top speed, but also a weaker engine. It has the best reverse speed out of the 3 though, which is quite important.

While M48 and Ikv 103 have good gun depression, T-54 is lacking in that regard, making it awkward to use in some positions. T-54 is the slowest out of the 3 and has horrible turret traverse speed.

M48 has good gun depression, but it’s very big, while T-54 is quite small for it’s class, but has poor gun depression. Ikv 103 is both small and has good gun depression.

Ikv 103 lacks good zoom compared to M48 and T-54, but I personally don’t care about zoom in a tank. It’s a nice bonus.

Shell velocity is a bit of a problem on Ikv 103. I believe it will make you miss sometimes, but also isn’t bad enough to make aiming a struggle

I would rank them like this:

1. T-54 (1951)
2. Ikv 103
3. M48 (the gun is just too bad for it’s size)

---

T-55A is quite a big step up, because of the stabilizer and improved turret traverse speed. A better engine also doesn’t hurt. It was generally a very good tank for it’s time and is rightfully 0.3 higher than T-54s. It probably should be 0.7 higher, 0.3 is for the historical reasons and another 0.4 for the balance reasons (stabilizer).

---

Leopard 1, in my opinion, completely outclasses all tanks above, except T-55A purely because of the stabilizer. It just has excellent firepower, mobility and handling. Armor is good enough to stop most of the “noise” like MGs, some SPAAs or poorly dropped bombs and arty, but is thin enough to not slow you down. The only thing it lacks is a stabilizer.

---

Now assume 6.7 ends WW2 and 7.7 ends conventional armor/shells era (IS-4).

If BRs were decompressed, I would put M48, Ikv 103 and T-54 (1951) at 8.3, T-55A at 9.0 and Leopard 1 at 9.7.

Starting from 8.3, to make a little more room for Cold War, but conventional tanks like AMX-50s for example. They would fit perfectly in 8.0, acting as a link between eras.

As you can imagine, that would require some serious decompression, not just from 12.0 max BR to 12.7 or something like that, but from 12.0 to 17.0 or 18.0.

[Panter2005]

@Panter2005

If BRs were decompressed, I would put M48, Ikv 103 and T-54 (1951) at 8.3, T-55A at 9.0 and Leopard 1 at 9.7.

For more reference, at 9.7 next to Leopard 1 I would probably put things like T-62 (base model of course).

[Panter2005]

@ZendikarHaven

T77E1, T18E2, T1E1, T1E1 (90mm), Skink, T14, M4/T26, T26E5, T26E1-1, T34, T92, T20, T28, Super Hellcat, M551 (76), T30, M6A2E1, T29, T32, T32E1, T95, T54E2, T54E1, T114, XM800T, T95E1, XM803, MBT-1, XM8, 120S, XM8, CCVL, LOSAT, AGS, and HSTV-L. All would be removed.

I meant problematic prototypes like Maus, E100, IS-7.

The ones you listed aren’t really problematic, maybe apart from T95 and T32E1, and are nice additions.

I would remove 120S and M4/T26 though, because I personally dislike them. Cheap, low effort fillers by Gaijin.

[LukavMineav]

@Panter2005 and @ZendikarHaven

I feel like this forum could keep 2 moderators busy full time reminding people that penetration does not determine the BR. It’s a frustrating talking point that everyone loves to rant on about but it is not a battle rating defining feature.

Panter, regarding below;

Stats dump, but not a lot of arguments.

I don’t think it’s very fair for you to be dismissive here, Zendikar is making a point about about the comparable performance of the M48 and T-54. Especially when you consider your point below:

I don’t know exactly how Ikv 103 handles, but it’s probably overall the same as M48, having higher top speed, but also a weaker engine. It has the best reverse speed out of the 3 though, which is quite important.

Without having even played the Ikv 103, you’re saying it has overall similar mobility to the M48. This is an astounding claim that is utterly baseless, I don’t mean to pick on you but you’re talking out your arse here.

I just tested the Ikv103 in the Test drive with a fully upgraded, it took 47.96 to reach the second target vehicle. The M48 reached that same vehicle in 37.02. This was over flat ground on a road…

Not to mention that the M48 has a turret with good gun depression, which means that the M48 has access to many more firing solutions, faster and is more responsive when engaging the enemy.

I tagged both Panter and Zendikar in this as I think the discussion of armour vs penetration in this specific context is a moot point and it is a massive tangent from the features of a vehicle that come together to determine a battle rating. Trying to argue that the Ikv 103 should be at 8.0 is simply absurd and wasting everyone’s time (I don’t say this to be insulting or to offend). Battle rating is determined by how all of a vehicles features fit together, not one or two cherry picked stats like armour and firepower.

As for the comment below, excluding russian heavy tanks, most vehicles at Rank V and upwards, don’t have more than 100mm of side armour.

T-54 and M48 have more much more firepower when they can pen with APHE. On M48 though APHE isn’t really practical, because of how low the penetration is.

The APHE on the M48 is exceptional as you can position yourself on the flank and reliably 1 shot enemy vehicles which means you can get a kill as fast as you can reload and identify a target. This makes the tank especially dangerous when you actually play the the vehicle’s strengths, and most vehicle’s strength’s aren’t taking shots to the face and engaging enemies head on. There’s only a few tanks that can actually rely on their armour, examples being the M4 (105), the KV-1 L-11 and another is Jagdpanzer IV/Hetzer. Most if not all other tanks, have opponents with contemporary firepower that defeat their armour effortlessly. A Jumbo is no match for an IS-2 or an SU-100, A Tiger II’s armour is no Match for a T34, an IS-3 and IS-4 will get one-shot by a Jagtiger and struggle to defeat the Jagtigers Armour.

I say this simply to point out that the ‘seperate the Cold war HEAT-FS, APDS, APFSDS’ argument falls apart when there are already plenty of WW2 vehicles that make heavy armour a liability and not a benefit. People want heavy tanks and armour to have more of an impact on gameplay, and they’re drawing an arbitrary line at the end of WW2 where the latest heavy tanks were being used. People argue that the introduction of HEAT-FS and APDS/APFSDS made those vehicle obsolete and less fun to play. I would argue that based on vehicles in the game, that heavy armour while useful, was obsolete on Tanks from the earliest stages of the war and was arguably obsolete at the beginning of WW2 (I’m not saying that tank’s don’t need armour, I’m arguing that heavy armour isn’t a solution as it’s far easier to develop a gun with greater penetrating power, than it is to develop a combat vehicle with enough armour to resist all contemporary enemy firepower)

[Panter2005]

@LukavMineav

Without having even played the Ikv 103, you’re saying it has overall similar mobility to the M48. This is an astounding claim that is utterly baseless, I don’t mean to pick on you but you’re talking out your arse here.

I just tested the Ikv103 in the Test drive with a fully upgraded, it took 47.96 to reach the second target vehicle. The M48 reached that same vehicle in 37.02. This was over flat ground on a road…

I was extrapolating based on the data available to me and my experience with many different tanks. I forgot about tracks, M48 has wide and more efficient tracks than Ikv 103. Maybe it also has a better transmission/gear ratios.

However, I said that M48 stands out in terms of mobility. From my experience it’s very fast, but limited by it’s top speed. That’s why I said that overall it’s the same as Ikv 103, because Ikv can simply reach speeds M48 can’t. Although I probably still should have granted M48 a win here, because acceleration is king.

@LukavMineav

I just tested the Ikv103 in the Test drive with a fully upgraded, it took 47.96 to reach the second target vehicle. The M48 reached that same vehicle in 37.02. This was over flat ground on a road…

A 10 second difference, but Ikv 103 has to accelerate to a higher top speed. Practical difference is probably quite a bit smaller, because acceleration decreases with speed and the last few kmh are the hardest to get. So it’s probably within the margin I imagined.

@LukavMineav

I feel like this forum could keep 2 moderators busy full time reminding people that penetration does not determine the BR. It’s a frustrating talking point that everyone loves to rant on about but it is not a battle rating defining feature.

@LukavMineav

I tagged both Panter and Zendikar in this as I think the discussion of armour vs penetration in this specific context is a moot point and it is a massive tangent from the features of a vehicle that come together to determine a battle rating. Trying to argue that the Ikv 103 should be at 8.0 is simply absurd and wasting everyone’s time (I don’t say this to be insulting or to offend). Battle rating is determined by how all of a vehicles features fit together, not one or two cherry picked stats like armour and firepower.

I just did a breakdown of all important parameters of M48, T-54 and Ikv 103. Read again.

In short, M48 and T-54 aren’t as scary as they look and Ikv 103’s disadvantages aren’t major ones.

@LukavMineav

Trying to argue that the Ikv 103 should be at 8.0 is simply absurd and wasting everyone’s time

That’s just your opinion. In my opinion it’s not absurd at all.

It seems absurd for you, because of the power of suggestion, it’s already at 4.0 and doubling that to 8.0 seems insane. You think that if it’s stats are alright, it means that it can’t bee that strong to go to 8.0. If it was yet to be added and you didn’t know that it would be put at 4.0, putting it at 8.0 wouldn’t seem nearly as ridiculous.

What you fail to realize, is that some tanks can perform pretty much the same, regardless of BR, up to a point. Ikv 103 will perform very similarly until it meets tanks with ERA armor or 2nd gen MBTs like Leopard 1, which should go up in BR as well.

A more familiar and more popularized example of a tank that performs similarly regardless of BR is Sturer Emil. It keeps dropping down in BRs, even though it really shouldn’t. It’s a more popular example, because “German mains bad” and it’s an easy excuse to gossip on them.

This mainly happens to tanks that have an overkill penetration, that definitely applies to Ikv 103.

@LukavMineav

The APHE on the M48 is exceptional as you can position yourself on the flank and reliably 1 shot enemy vehicles which means you can get a kill as fast as you can reload and identify a target. This makes the tank especially dangerous when you actually play the the vehicle’s strengths, and most vehicle’s strength’s aren’t taking shots to the face and engaging enemies head on.

It’s too big for that. I’ve never tried it though, because I deemed it to be foolish, so maybe I’m wrong. I see no reason to do that in an M48, when M56 exists.

@LukavMineav

I would argue that based on vehicles in the game, that heavy armour while useful, was obsolete on Tanks from the earliest stages of the war and was arguably obsolete at the beginning of WW2

This is false and tanks like KV-1 or Tiger 1 are a living proof of that.

Heavy armor was made obsolete shortly after WW2 by HEAT shells.

Heavy armor definitely wasn’t obsolete during WW2. What you’re probably thinking is that heavy armor was not cost effective. That was the case since the beginning of mankind.

Heavy armor came back with the introduction of composite armor. It did not resurrect heavy tanks, because by that time engines became so powerful and armor lighter and more efficiently placed, that a tank could have both good mobility and armor.

[LukavMineav]

Seeing as you don’t really seem to know what you are talking about, why are you extrapolating in the first place?

However, I said that M48 stands out in terms of mobility. From my experience it’s very fast, but limited by it’s top speed. That’s why I said that overall it’s the same as Ikv 103, because Ikv can simply reach speeds M48 can’t. Although I probably still should have granted M48 a win here, because acceleration is king.
A 10 second difference, but Ikv 103 has to accelerate to a higher top speed. Practical difference is probably quite a bit smaller, because acceleration decreases with speed and the last few kmh are the hardest to get. So it’s probably within the margin I imagined.

Just for future reference, when you decided to extrapolate the data of other vehicles you haven’t used.
The phenoma you are trying to describe using speed and acceleration, can be better approximated using the well understood metric of ‘power to weight ratio’ the Ikv has 15.11hp/tonne and the M48 has 18.4hp/tonne and if you compare the top speeds (assuming the Ikv has enough power to reach it’s top speed) you’ll immediately know that the M48 is geared lower as it has more power but a lower top speed hence the M48 can maintain it’s top speed easily cross country while the Gutless Ikv struggles to wind up on a paved road.

I just did a breakdown of all important parameters of M48, T-54 and Ikv 103. Read again.

In my opinion, not only did you fail to identify the important parameters, I’d further argue that you’re not qualified to discuss what you did bring up.

It seems absurd for you, because of the power of suggestion, it’s already at 4.0 and doubling that to 8.0 seems insane. You think that if it’s stats are alright, it means that it can’t bee that strong to go to 8.0. If it was yet to be added and you didn’t know that it would be put at 4.0, putting it at 8.0 wouldn’t seem nearly as ridiculous.

No it’s nothing to do with suggestion, I have actually used both vehicles unlike you and have a realistic understanding of their performance in game based on actual experience. Where as you are purely speculating.

It’s too big for that. I’ve never tried it though, because I deemed it to be foolish, so maybe I’m wrong. I see no reason to do that in an M48, when M56 exists.

Well for starters, you should be trying to outposition your enemy in every vehicle you drive. The M48 is large for sure but the goal of flanking isn’t to be concealed, the point of flanking as I see is to position myself where the enemy team is not focusing their attention. You don’t need to be hidden if they’re not even looking at/for you.

What you fail to realize, is that some tanks can perform pretty much the same, regardless of BR, up to a point. Ikv 103 will perform very similarly until it meets tanks with ERA armor or 2nd gen MBTs like Leopard 1, which should go up in BR as well.

What you fail to realise is that while this is technically possible, you and 85% of the player base won’t ever achieve these results. If the Ikv 103 was half as good as your bad extrapolation of stats make it out to be, it would be at a higher battlerating already. Honestly, if what you’re saying is true, it would be at least be at 6.7 with the Jpz 4-5 no?

[Ion_Protogen]

@LukavMineav

What you fail to realise is that while this is technically possible, you and 85% of the player base won’t ever achieve these results. If the Ikv 103 was half as good as your bad extrapolation of stats make it out to be, it would be at a higher battlerating already.

In fact, it’s even gone down in BR since it was added. It used to be 5.0, and now it’s 4.0.

[Panter2005]

@LukavMineav

the Ikv has 15.11hp/tonne and the M48 has 18.4hp/tonne

That’s false.

M48 has 18.04 hp/t

Ikv 103 has 17.05 hp/t

@LukavMineav

Well for starters, you should be trying to outposition your enemy in every vehicle you drive. The M48 is large for sure but the goal of flanking isn’t to be concealed, the point of flanking as I see is to position myself where the enemy team is not focusing their attention. You don’t need to be hidden if they’re not even looking at/for you.

You really don’t have to teach me how to play.

Whatever you can do using APHE in an M48 at 7.7 you can do better in M26 at 6.7.

@LukavMineav

No it’s nothing to do with suggestion, I have actually used both vehicles unlike you and have a realistic understanding of their performance in game based on actual experience. Where as you are purely speculating.

@LukavMineav

If the Ikv 103 was half as good as your bad extrapolation of stats make it out to be, it would be at a higher battlerating already. Honestly, if what you’re saying is true, it would be at least be at 6.7 with the Jpz 4-5 no?

This is 1 to 1 what I have just talked about.

It seems absurd for you, because of the power of suggestion, it’s already at 4.0 and doubling that to 8.0 seems insane. You think that if it’s stats are alright, it means that it can’t bee that strong to go to 8.0. If it was yet to be added and you didn’t know that it would be put at 4.0, putting it at 8.0 wouldn’t seem nearly as ridiculous.

---

It seems like you’re taking a “you’re a bad and stupid player” stance alongside “I played it, you didn’t, I’m right”:

@LukavMineav

Seeing as you don’t really seem to know what you are talking about, why are you extrapolating in the first place?

@LukavMineav

Just for future reference, when you decided to extrapolate the data of other vehicles you haven’t used.
The phenoma you are trying to describe using speed and acceleration, can be better approximated using the well understood metric of ‘power to weight ratio’ the Ikv has 15.11hp/tonne and the M48 has 18.4hp/tonne and if you compare the top speeds (assuming the Ikv has enough power to reach it’s top speed) you’ll immediately know that the M48 is geared lower as it has more power but a lower top speed hence the M48 can maintain it’s top speed easily cross country while the Gutless Ikv struggles to wind up on a paved road.

@LukavMineav

In my opinion, not only did you fail to identify the important parameters, I’d further argue that you’re not qualified to discuss what you did bring up.

@LukavMineav

I have actually used both vehicles unlike you and have a realistic understanding of their performance in game based on actual experience.

@LukavMineav

What you fail to realise is that while this is technically possible, you and 85% of the player base won’t ever achieve these results.

[Aegis270]

@Panter2005

Maybe I will just grind the Ikv 103 and ask a friend to uptier me

It is utterly laughable that you’re arguing to literally double the BR of a vehicle you haven’t even played.
You just assume that the shell velocity isn’t a problem that makes it difficult to aim. Fun fact, the Ikv’s shell is only marginally faster than the HEAT shell on the short barrel Panzer IVs, (530 vs 450 m/s), for whom 500m is considered long range. And you want this vehicle to not only fight Leopards, but fully stabilized, LRF equipped MBTs in uptiers.

I’m surprised no-one’s brought up the terrible gun handling either. Even with an aced crew, they can only swing the gun at 8 degrees a second. Most mediums at the tier can manage double that minimum (M4A2 can manage 24 degrees, for instance). Even the slowest mediums like the Chi-Nu at least manage 10. This means even if you manage to get the jump on someone, they have an enormous window to shoot first while you’re still trying to lay the gun on target.

[Panter2005]

@Aegis270

It is utterly laughable that you’re arguing to literally double the BR of a vehicle you haven’t even played.

On my way to spade every vehicle in the game. Only then can I have an opinion on anything.

@Aegis270

You just assume that the shell velocity isn’t a problem that makes it difficult to aim. Fun fact, the Ikv’s shell is only marginally faster than the HEAT shell on the short barrel Panzer IVs, (530 vs 450 m/s), for whom 500m is considered long range.

I’ve played many different tanks with different shell velocities. I know what’s difficult to aim and what isn’t.

@Aegis270

And you want this vehicle to not only fight Leopards, but fully stabilized, LRF equipped MBTs in uptiers.

Read again, carefully. I’m not wasting my time repeating myself.

@Aegis270

I’m surprised no-one’s brought up the terrible gun handling either. Even with an aced crew, they can only swing the gun at 8 degrees a second. Most mediums at the tier can manage double that minimum (M4A2 can manage 24 degrees, for instance). Even the slowest mediums like the Chi-Nu at least manage 10. This means even if you manage to get the jump on someone, they have an enormous window to shoot first while you’re still trying to lay the gun on target.

That’s not how you play this tank.

[LukavMineav]

On my way to spade every vehicle in the game. Only then can I have an opinion on anything.

No is stopping you from discussing vehicles that you have played.

That’s not how you play this tank.

It is when your first shell doesn’t disable the enemy tank

[Panter2005]

@LukavMineav

It is when your first shell doesn’t disable the enemy tank

Your first shell should kill the enemy tank majority of the time. It’s a 105mm HEAT, not 90mm. It has 1.41kg of TNT equivalent, Leopard 1 has 1.27kg and it one shots easily, I know from your beloved experience.

[Aegis270]

@Panter2005

On my way to spade every vehicle in the game. Only then can I have an opinion on anything.

You’re allowed to have opinions on vehicles. Even those you haven’t played. But when you’re making an argument about a vehicle you haven’t played, and players who have come out of the woodwork to tell you that you’re wrong and here’s why, countering with “Well it seems like” or “It looks like” is not sufficient.

@Panter2005

I’ve played many different tanks with different shell velocities. I know what’s difficult to aim and what isn’t.

You haven’t played this one, which is what is important. Go ahead and find another tank with 530 m/s velocity that you’d happily snipe with, I’ll wait.

@Panter2005

That’s not how you play this tank.

Says the person who hasn’t played it.

But I have (even managing to go slightly positive over 89 games), so let me tell you how it actually plays.

To quickly go through the archetypes, it’s not a brawler (for obvious reasons).

It’s not a flanker. It’s fast, but your gun handling is too slow to push a surprised player and consistently get the first shot off. Plus it’s reload is slow enough that most people can freely push you after you fire. And the lack of a turret makes it slower to engage people around corners.

Finally, it’s not a sniper. The shell is too low velocity for consistent long range work, merely hitting targets at beyond 500m can be challenging, especially if they’re moving or there’s any soft cover involved. Add on to that the narrow cone of damage due to the HEAT shell, meaning that just hitting an enemy may not do any critical damage unless you hit an important part, and it should be apparent why this is non-ideal.

So what are it’s advantages? It’s fairly quick and it has tons of gun depression. This gives you a fairly gimmicky but somewhat consistent playstyle of mid range ridge ambushing. Where you sit behind a ridge steep enough that no other tanks can use it, and push over and blap people who discount the location. Due to the low velocity of the shell, you can somewhat indirect fire people in some positions too. Even then, this isn’t super consistent. Your gun handling is so slow that pushing over the hill does give an aware enemy time to react, and once he’s aware of you there’s nothing you can do. Meanwhile, he doesn’t even need to push you, artillery can force you away.

This is the one situation that it excels in. Even then, I could achieve similar or even better results in something like the Pvkv II or Pvkv m/43 (1946), who have similar gun depression and have guns that can deal with practically every tank they can see, but also have HE filler for more consistent damage and faster velocities meaning they’re usable outside point blank range.

[LukavMineav]

You’ve picked an odd hill to die on my friend.

Considering that you believe so strongly in your point about vehicles being uptiered to suit their timeline of introduction/construction.

Did it ever occur to you to try and make this point with the M36B2 or the M46? If you’re correct about the firepower and mobility of the Ikv 103, surely the M46 is at least an 8.0 also.

Or Even the ST-A1 and A2.

Or maybe a comparison between the Ikv 103 and an Rank V shitbox that fires heat also. For Instance the R3 T106, it’s at 8.0 it has a 106mm recoilless (low velocity heat shell) and excellent mobility and no armour. I think its pretty obvious that there’s an exceptional difference between the R3 106 and the Ikv 103 that clearly highlights why 1 is at 8.0 and the other at 4.0.

I don’t think you’re a bad player and I don’t think you’re stupid either. I think you’ve picked your conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of the game and facts and are now stubbornly tripping over yourself to say anything in support of your flawed presuposition.

[Panter2005]

@Aegis270

Finally, it’s not a sniper. The shell is too low velocity for consistent long range work, merely hitting targets at beyond 500m can be challenging, especially if they’re moving or there’s any soft cover involved.

Stop crying about shell velocity, it really isn’t that bad.

Spoiler

Shermans 75 have 618 m/s shell velocity and it’s a perfectly fine velocity. T-34s have 655m/s.

@Aegis270

Says the person who hasn’t played it.

I really don’t have to play it to know how it plays. I have more than enough general experience.

@LukavMineav

Did it ever occur to you to try and make this point with the M36B2 or the M46? If you’re correct about the firepower and mobility of the Ikv 103, surely the M46 is at least an 8.0 also.

Or Even the ST-A1 and A2.

Or maybe a comparison between the Ikv 103 and an Rank V shitbox that fires heat also. For Instance the R3 T106, it’s at 8.0 it has a 106mm recoilless (low velocity heat shell) and excellent mobility and no armour. I think its pretty obvious that there’s an exceptional difference between the R3 106 and the Ikv 103 that clearly highlights why 1 is at 8.0 and the other at 4.0.

I want to cleanse BRs 1.0-7.7 of post-war HEAT slingers. All of them.

@LukavMineav

Or maybe a comparison between the Ikv 103 and an Rank V shitbox that fires heat also. For Instance the R3 T106, it’s at 8.0 it has a 106mm recoilless (low velocity heat shell) and excellent mobility and no armour. I think its pretty obvious that there’s an exceptional difference between the R3 106 and the Ikv 103 that clearly highlights why 1 is at 8.0 and the other at 4.0.

@LukavMineav

Or maybe a comparison between the Ikv 103 and an Rank V shitbox that fires heat also. For Instance the R3 T106, it’s at 8.0 it has a 106mm recoilless (low velocity heat shell) and excellent mobility and no armour. I think its pretty obvious that there’s an exceptional difference between the R3 106 and the Ikv 103 that clearly highlights why 1 is at 8.0 and the other at 4.0.

R3 is a very fast 1980s armored car. Give it scouting (if it doesn’t already have it, I don’t remember) and it could fight T-80s.

It’s a god damn armored car, not a tank remover, it doesn’t have to be as good at killing tanks as MBTs on it’s BR.

Capping zones and spotting alone would be plenty of contribution to the win, and with such high mobility and small size it would be able to get some kills too.

[LukavMineav]

If this conversation has taught me anything about comparing tanks it is this (using the following examples to demonstrate my point)

M36 vs M36B2
M26 vs M46
T-54 1947 vs T-54-1949/51

A post war HEAT shell at best, accounts for a 0.3 BR difference all things being the same.

[Panter2005]

@LukavMineav

M36 vs M36B2
M26 vs M46
T-54 1947 vs T-54-1949/51

A post war HEAT shell at best, accounts for a 0.3 BR difference all things being the same.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with the game right now.

[Aegis270]

@Panter2005

Stop crying about shell velocity, it really isn’t that bad.

Ah yes, the famously effective sniping tank, the T-28. But even it (as well as the short 75 and 76.2mm equipped tanks) have an advantage over the Ikv in the sniping role and it’s due to the HE filler. Even though they’re almost as hard to aim at longer ranges, they generally just need to hit and pen to kill or disable. Penning can be a problem for them (Especially the T-28), but since a lot of the tanks at the tier lack the armor to consistently bounce, it’s not always an issue.

Meanwhile, the Ikv’s HEAT shell has a very narrow cone of damage. It will only damage what you directly hit with it. So you can’t just hit the tank, you have to hit it accurately, lining up the shot so it hits ammo, the driver/gunner, or something else critical. This becomes infinitely more difficult at longer ranges, doubly so if the target is on the move. And if you’re off by a fraction, you either don’t disable them, or disable them in a way that allows them to either drive into cover or fire back, denying you the kill either way.

That’s really the critical flaw in this argument, at the end of the day. For the low/mid tiers especially, HEATFS is more of a liability than an advantage. Sure, it gives you enough penetration to punch through any armor you meet. But other conventional rounds at the tier can generally also do that with good aim, without giving up post pen damage (And so many other attributes) to do it.

Geniunely, what can an Ikv kill that a Pvkv can’t? The only thing that comes to mind is a perfectly angled KV-1B/E/ZiS at medium/long range. If you run up against literally anything else, you are better off in the Pvkv due to it’s flexibility (And something being less flexible than the Pvkv is really something).

[ZendikarHaven]

@Aegis270

The only thing that comes to mind is a perfectly angled KV-1B/E/ZiS at medium/long range.

Nope! The pvkv has godly optics, so it would still be better.

[Aegis270]

That’s another point to the Pvkv, but I’m talking about the absolutely perfect situation where the KV-1 is perfectly angled such that the Pvkv can’t get through. Of course, it couldn’t fire back either, leaving the Pvkv free to just wait until his turret unangles, but it’s still a technical advantage to the HEAT shell.