Most of them work fine for me. The issue it that people expect to hold W and bounce rounds like it is a tank in a CoD campaign mission.
No matter what tank I use, i try to not get shot. For heavies i work the armor to bait poor shots then push for a kill.
It’s funny that in WT the IS-3 already is slightly faster to reload than the IS-2 or IS-4M with their massively larger interiors.
What made the IS-3 so bad was that it fell for the same mistakes as the early KV-1 and T-34. Sacrificing everything for armor.
Not only was the space inside the IS-3s turret extremely limited, they didn’'t even put a comander cupola on the tank like it’s 1939 again.
So not only was it more difficult for the loader to load shells unless he was the size of a dwarf, the commander couldn’t observe the surroundings properly and had to use the same poor hatch design as the early T-34s with their single and double turret hatches, that made it impossible for the commander to just see what’s infront of him by poking his head out, without standing on his seat looking above the plate.
Since the IS-3 didn’t improve the IS-2 whatsoever, appart from increasing the armor values, production was quickly stopped and the IS-2 remained in servive for far longer.
Since when armor no longer matters, at least you want to be able to shoot first, or have a chance to do so.
There’s a difference between being hard to kill and basically impossible to kill. Even within it’s BR range any vehicle that doesn’t have HEATFS is SOL, and early APDS is a dice roll.
Anyone lacking APDS or HEATFS is forced to barrel it, track it and run away. That’s not enjoyable nor balanced.
Even at 7.0 the vehicle didn’t have amazing performance.
It was one of the slowest vehicles, has terrible turret traverse and a long reload.
Sounds like a Jadgtiger to me, which is rarely an effective vehicle unless you actually need the 128mm to pen a target but the price is a nearly three times longer reload time compared to the Ferdinand.
No wonder they foldered the Jagdtiger under the Ferdinand.
Even at 7.0 you are at a constant threat of getting shot by a Bulldog or any other fast light vehicles from the side or any of the many HEAT-FS using vehicles, like the French ELC.
Even when others can’t pen the IS-3, they can still just shoot the track and get away before it can react.
Compared to the JT the IS-3 has shorter reload, more mobility and a rotating turret. It’s apples to oranges so you’re going to need to actually compare it with a proper contemporary.
Only, there isn’t one. Every other HT from any other nation in the IS-3’s BR range doesn’t have the same survivability. Their armor isn’t as good and doesn’t hold up against it’s 122mm gun. Additionally, the mobility for the rest is noticeably less than the IS-3, though the turret traverse can make up for it depending on the situation. However, most of them cannot easily, or even at all, actually pen the IS-3.
As it stands the IS-3 can very will go to 7.7; It has no business being within the BR range of 6.3 vehicles.
And before you say anything about 8.7 slapping the absolute dogwater out of it. Yes, they would just like they do to the M103, Maus and the Caernevon.
No, I don’t care. The IS-3 can suffer along with them until we get proper decompression. I have zero sympathy for the vehicle. Simple as.
Of course it has because it simply can’t compete with any other vehicle.
What’s good about a heavy tank at 7.7 that always gets shot first and see vehicles that can easily pen it all the time.
Yeah so you are just shouting nonsense.
The IS-3 has zero reason to go to 7.7 with less firepower than the IS-2 has at 6.7 and armor that is easily negated by guns or the fact that everyone has better mobility or gun controls.
Even at 7.0, there’s nothing good about the IS-3 other than armor, which doesn’t kill enemy tanks.
Uptiers negate the armor but even when facing tanks off lower BR, you’re just a less mobile IS-2 that has even slower turret traverse.
In no world does the IS-3 beat even the Tiger II H in performance, which can dispatch other tanks with twice the RoF while also having the ability to aim at them, with twice the turret traverse.
Not only does a Tiger II H have a very easy time to disable an IS-3 but so does every other 5.7-6.7 vehicle.
The only time an IS-3 is even remotely a threat, is when you somehow let it put guns on you.
Which is kinda difficult when it’s one of the slowest to react vehicles available.
Reload rates on most tanks are not accurate. This is what they call a soft stat they adjust for balance reason. They don’t care about real reload speeds. If they did for example almost every British gun pre ww2 and some after would be about 4 seconds eg 6pdr, 17pdr and 20pdr tanks
You are presenting the case as if the only way to engage a armorued target is head on. The IS-3 while having decent mobility has slow turret traverse and quite a whobbily gun while moving. Approach it from the side, with a little panic control and skill you can clean it out with a single shot to the lower side plate.
The lower side plate is also very thin, and the gun is also easy to knock out.
I rarely have issues with it. It has an incredibly long reload, and poor penetration, making it possible to block a hit and then kill it.
yeah its hardly as big of a deal as some make it out to be, atleast at its current br
A long time ago (3-5 yrs??) Gaijin explicitly stated that reloading times are a balancing mechanism, and not intended to be “historically accurate”.
It’d be in the old forum if you want to take time to find it.
Yeah another guy already was so kind as to show where technical moderators clarified this, but thanks anyways.
all guns, even autoloaders
Try telling that to a T34 and M26 that couldn’t pen me in an IS-3 on side shots even at point-blank the last time I played it. It is damn near completely immune to all shell types that aren’t APDS or HEATFS.
Even if you’re shooting below the armor at the road wheels to pen through those into the hull it’s a massive dice roll.
No, I’m not. You simply refuse to acknowledge my argument’s factual merits because they spit in the face of your argument. Which is your problem, not mine.
Luckily for you, Gaijin will continue to keep the IS-3 undertiered so take comfort in that.
I mean that is skill issue. Think its kinda rediculous that a tank like the IS-3, as you suggests, should move up just because its not a point and click kill - unless people get some skill, that is
Yet worse HTs like the M103, Caernavon and Maus are all higher BR than it with worse armor, mobility and for the Maus - gun handling.
If they can suffer at 7.7 until we get decompression, so can the IS-3 and still perform.
Actually it’s not a problem at all. Because why should I care?
You believe whatever you want, and I do so as well.
You should hear yourself. I can say the same thing so you should come up with something better than: “I’m right and you simply chose not to care about what I said.”
The IS-3 is an factual bad tank and effective armor doesn’t change that.
The opposite is the case for the IS-6 because it’s a straight improvement over the IS-2 in terms of mobility, RoF and armor, while the IS-3 only gains armor while losing mobility and turret traverse speed.
So in the end the IS-3 doesn’t really improve anything, it just mixes stats around, more survivability for less firepower.
Which is like the same deal why the Jagdtiger isn’t better in any way compared to the Tiger II H.
Thats a whole other discussion and those threads already exists, I dispute however that the M103 and Caernarvon somehow are worse heavy tanks or even comparable to the IS-3. Both of those tanks have much better options when uptiered since they have either HEAT or Sabot with their own advangtages in a BR range where APHE-shells falls short. The Caernarvon is even stabilized, how can you suggest such a thing!? with a 8 second reload rate, bro what are you on about?
