If you have a disabled Turret/automatic death.
I’ve had many times where my turret was disabled, and I still managed to get it repaired and kill them. That said, both of us are off topic.
at this moment i believe this guy`s just a huge troll
they arent, they just have 6.7 canon at 7.3-7.7.
Believe what you want, man. This is what I sincerely believe after having played and spaded all heavies save for the AMX-50s I haven’t unlocked yet. Heavy armor has no meaning unless it 1) actually stops enemy shots and 2) your opponent is forced to either shoot that armor or not shoot.
If a piece of heavy armor is massive and slow with thick frontal armor, then it MUST under no uncertain circumstances be nigh-immune frontally to standard opposition. Otherwise what is even the point of all that “armor”? Deadweight? And this includes utterly deleting the mechanic of barrel damage from the game, so that if you run into something you cannot frontally pen, and you did not plan a route to escape should you run into something you cannot pen, you then die if he doesn’t whiff his shot.
If the armor has weakspots that are NOT the currently-idiotic barrel damage (or cupola shots), then that must be adapted to by the player.
In case you want the detailed logic why I think the way I do, the full explanation is below. Also, you should be aware that all APCR is missing much of its vertical pen and most of its postpen, which was not much different from solid AP of the same size. APDS is missing most of its postpen. HEAT & HEATFS are missing much of their postpen. HESH is a fucking mess and a disgrace. Big HE is missing the kinetic portion of its penetration being added on top of the explosive portion. The proposals below are assuming all this gets rightfully corrected. And it goes without saying that many more machines besides heavies and heavy TDs would change BRs too, but they aren’t the point of discussion here.
Spoiler
For America:
Spoiler
- Jumbo 76: reclassify it to a medium tank, rebuff APCR globally which would give it 250mm pen and usefully good spalling on M93, leave its BR as-is.
- T26E4 (aka Super Pershing, its incorrectly named): with global APCR rebuff giving it 373mm pen and spalling comparable to the 90mm solid AP, it would go from mediocre to great at its current BR. If the spall shield ever was corrected to 89mm thickness on top of that, it might even be worthy of 7.0, as now hull-down a long 88 would almost never pen, even with APCR.
- T26E5 “Jumbo Pershing”: with global APCR rebuff all short 90mm guns would pen 317mm and spall nicely. This would go from highly situational to outstanding at its current BR, as it already can shrug off a long 88.
- T34: With a global APCR rebuff, this would now pen 453mm with very good spalling! The armor and mobility are already quite nice, almost medium tank level. Easily would go up to 7.3 with such a shell.
- M6A2E1: with a global APCR rebuff, this would pen 381mm with very good spalling. But, as this is quite slow and has a rather painful reload, it would be very difficult to justify it going up in BR at all. Hell, I’d argue that despite the gun buff it’d still be worthy of going down to 6.3, due to lacking mobility.
- T29: With the same 381mm pen rebuffed APCR and its already great mobility + armor, this would easily become 7.3 material.
- T28: Much like the M6A2E1, this would really be unable to go up even with the APCR buff because of total lack of mobility and paper-thin sides even an SPAA can pen. Nevermind painful reload and no reverse speed.
- T30: turns out this thing is missing APCR with approximately 320mm pen in testing. The postpen spall would and should be enormous, given the penetrator for the round weighed as much as a Russian 122mm AP round.
- T32 & T32E1: with the same 373mm pen round and good spalling as the Super Pershing but much better armor overall and medium-like mobility, both of these would suddenly go from mediocre to amazing at their current BRs.
- M103: Given how most of this thing’s ammunition loadout consists of stuff long overdue for rebuffing (big HE, HEATFS, and its also outright missing APDS), this thing’s proper BR with all its missing stuff and that stuff properly working is anyone’s guess. The HEATFS already pens 380mm, with a postpen buff that alone would warrant a BR increase. With its missing 546mm pen T102 APDS, I can’t imagine it going higher than 8.3 without serious high tier decompression. And yes, the real T102 APDS penetrated 495mm at 1000 yards range, against a plate 30 degrees sloped from vertical.
- T58: The HEATFS rebuff alone would push it up to 8.7, if HESH worked properly then even 9.0 isn’t beyond the realm of possibility, but to do that would require substantial high tier decompression. With working rounds it’d be good but not Object 279 good.
Germany:
Spoiler
- Tiger II Nr1-50: long 88 APCR is also underperforming, though not by nearly as much as American rounds currently are. It should pen 305mm flat and spall as well as 90mm solid shot. However with the mobility nerf I cannot see this going up at all in BR.
- Tiger II: with the same 305mm pen APCR, but better turret armor, maaaybe it could go as high as 7.0, but again the mobility nerf really hurt it badly.
- Tiger II Sla.16: with the better engine and buffed APCR, this would without a doubt go up to 7.0.
- Tiger II 10.5cm KwK46 L/68: with the vastly better engine and admittedly fake APCR round that using the same formulae as what matches American rounds, it would pen somewhere close to 400mm. More mobile than the T32s, but glassier turret face, plus rangefinder. Definite 7.3 material - I seriously think this is better than the Maus any day of the week.
- Ferdinand/Elefant: with the buffed APCR penning 305mm, these would become better for their BRs, but due again to poor mobility, neither should go up.
- Jagdtiger: There was in fact a 128mm APCR round produced, but it was never mass produced due to tungsten shortages. It penned 420mm, so with the same postpen spall increase as above examples, it would be quite a good round. But with the same engine nerf, this cannot even be considered to move up no matter what gun it has.
- Maus/E-100: These are difficult to tier. Due to completely lacking mobility, also complete lack of maneuverability, and long reload, yes I seriously would think this thing should go down to 7.0, not stay as-is. It’s completely reliant on its armor for protection - if that doesn’t work then what does it have going for it? Addition of the missing APCR round would not change much. The APHEDS round is a rather special case and could serve as a “fudge factor” to artificially make it worthy of staying as-is. I read up on said round, and found it was tested on a whole range of shell velocities, up to 1800 m/s. Thus snail could do whatever they want with it. But even with a gun theoretically capable of that, everyone it meets penning its armor almost carelessly the moment it tries to aim at them makes me think “firepower is meaningless if you cannot bring it to bear with the ability to shoot intact.” APCR from the T34 with the rebuff would easily pen this thing even if it angles, nevermind all the HEATFS…
Russia:
Spoiler
- All IS-2’44 models: These are 5.7-grade machines stuck at 6.7 because of BS sloped performance, unrealistically high vertical pen on the 122, and finally YouTubers overemphasizing the reverse speed to engine-block incoming shots. I would place all these at 5.7. With all their opposition now un-nerfed, engine-tanking would no longer be a viable strategy, and that’s all this thing has going for it. For the sake of comparison I’d put the IS-2’43 at 5.3, likewise with the IS-1.
- Object 248: It’s an IS-2’43 with a different gun, but no postwar APCBC round. The correct pen on the 100mm blunt-nose shell is only 180mm. I’d put this at 5.7.
- IS-3: with the same currently-overperforming shells as other 122s, this would be difficult to place. But with all the proposed rebuffs to rounds that damn well should kill it yet currently don’t or do fuck all for postpen damage, yes I stand behind my proposal of 6.7 on this.
- IS-4M: It’s more mobile than the Maus, with a substantially worse gun, and 160mm flat sides instead of the sloped trolly sides of the IS-3. With all the above pen and postpen buffs to rounds that damn well should eviscerate it, yes I stand behind suggesting 7.0 for this. It’s much worse than the T-10A or IS-6 are.
- T-10A and IS-6 stay as-is, because those can actually move to save their own lives. The T-10A also gets a Sherman stabilizer and substantially faster reload.
- Object 268: It’s a Jagdtiger with a bit less armor but a bit more mobility. It could theoretically stay as-is, but given its frontal armor can be penned even by a Panther 75, I’d argue 6.3 fits better.
- IS-7, T-10M, and Object 279 all can stay as-is. With long-overdue rebuffs to APDS and HEATFS, the T-10M might even go up.
Britain:
Spoiler
- Black Prince: unlike APCR, APDS has historically-correct armor penetration. The issues globally with the round lie with terrible postpen on sharp-nose rounds and the unfairly-implemented shell shattering mechanic. Rebuff the former and remove the latter, and the APDS becomes great. Unfortunately, its still a Churchill VII, a platform which struggles to shrug off rounds even in a 4.7 downtier. Thus I’d argue regardless of APDS buffs, this should be 5.3. The chassis cannot handle it.
- (currently missing from game) Caernarvon Mk.1 (17-pdr): The missing link between the Churchill VII and 20pdr Caernarvon. It would AFAIK have a stabilizer, and otherwise be identical to the 20pdr one save the gun, so this would fill a vital 6.7 role and help give Britain a proper lineup. A copy-paste of the old BP premium Centurion Mk.2 would also be sorely needed.
- Tortoise: This thing needs to be 5.7 in its current state, as the armor is already not relevant even in a full downtier. Rebuffing all underperforming rounds would make this worse, and its missing 32pdr APDS would not save it in the slightest despite 450mm pen that round would have.
- Caernarvon (20-pdr): with un-nerfed APDS postpen, no unfair shattering, and all its other relatively good traits, this would stay where it is.
- Conqueror: with un-nerfed APDS postpen, no unfair shattering, and un-nerfed HESH, this would potentially warrant a slight increase to 8.0, though with the still long reload I’d be cautious about that. Apparently the gun could also use the same APBC the M103 gets, as said gun was a common US-UK project (the M103’s missing APDS is based on the Conqueror’s).
Japan:
- Ho-Ri Prototype: it’s got a good gun and decently good mobility, but a 150mm flat plate is not much, and would be worth much, much less with restoratively buffed APCR and APDS that easily cut on through it. Hence why I propose 5.7 on this.
- Ho-Ri Production: less armor than a Jagdtiger, but substantially better mobility, and a gun that’s a marginally better long 88. This thing always was 6.7 material, and all the APCR+APDS rebuffs would ensure it’s nothing special here.
- (currently missing ingame): Mi-To (also known as the O-I): This overhyped hunk of junk is a cross between a Churchill VII and a KV-2. Two potential realistic models to add to WT, both with 150mm howitzer main guns (the 105mm from WoT is totally fake), differing only in how much armor they have. With 150mm front and back, and 100mm sides, Churchill mobility, and a funny but not spectacular gun, the up-armored model can be no higher than 5.7 in my eyes. The twin 47mm auxiliary turrets are only useful vs light tanks at such a BR.
China:
Spoiler
- see IS-2’44 bit above.
Italy:
Spoiler
- (currently missing): P.30 series of heavy tanks: This progressed to the mockup stage, and are something Italy sorely needs for uniqueness. Up to 4 models are possible with different guns (75/34, 105/25, 75/46, and 90/53), with the last one also having a Panther engine in it.
France:
Spoiler
- Somua SM: Unchanged, though with all the rebuffs to rounds its facing, there would be some merit to dropping this to 7.3 at least.
- AMX-50 Surbaisse and Surblinde: this thing is using the same US-UK joint project 120mm cannon as the M103 and Conqueror, so an argument exists that it is compatible with the same rounds, as it already fires the M103’s. With the HEATFS and APDS the M103 would have, both rebuffed, this would immediately warrant 8.3 on the reload alone. Also the mobility is nothing to sneeze at.
- AMX-50 Foch: No turret weakness, but no autoloader either. Still easily 8.0-8.3 material with the M103’s missing/underperforming rounds.
Sweden:
Spoiler
- see bit on Tiger II Nr1-50
- (currently not ingame) Kranvagn/Emil: To my understanding this would be comparable to the Surbaisse, but ultimately idk what BR it would have as the guns were not produced, and thus would be totally made-up, AFAIK. If I’m wrong here, please correct me.
Israel:
Spoiler
- (currently not ingame) captured IS-3 has been talked about as a likely premium for them in the future. See part on IS-3 above, same story.
it must not?
Nearly all heavy tanks in this game, starting from KV-1 L-11 and ending on T58, are pretty much vulnerable if standing straight front. Most heavy tanks need to angle their armor to make it worthwile. So does Maus - it is immune to most of the guns from his era AND TO ALL GUNS except HEATFS launchers from 6.7 frontally and is a huge mess to deal with even with HEATs and APFSDSes which he meets when angled. More than that, it has literally most powerful cannon on that rating, deleting ANY threat with ease. And also has a secondary cannon which helps against small machinery. That would be stupid to imply that it`s weak when even someone like me, who hates this tank in its entirety, plays it doing 3kd ratio.
ability to whistand random shots from enemies you missed and trick sme players into shooting it.
And i get it, its hard to master when you mostly play cardboard anti-tanks like SHellcat, Sturer Emil and ASU-57. Brawling in close quarters is an art that must be learned hard way.
tho i see you play well with OP heavies like King Tiger or KV-1B, so i suggest you understand that yourself. And EVEN MAUS has 2.5kd ratio in your hands, that`s straight up trolling right now. YOu play OP kv-1B with same KD ratio as Maus and suggest moving Maus. That really trolling. Most well-played tanks on your account are literally those which you called
