The IS-4M reload is 50% longer than the T32E1 and the gun is much worse. Thanks to it’s larger caliber it gets caught on volumetric armor much more often than the 90mm. It also has a whole -3 gun depression making it useless on half of the maps.
1 Like
Looking at the pictures, you don’t know how armor thickness works. Look at the turret cheeks instead of the side of the turret where the armor stops protecting internals and becomes a solid piece. Then there is much more than “a 50mm difference”. Also, 50mm is around 20-25% of penetration values at this BR for APHE, 20-25% differences are quite significant. Look at the 7.7 Russian tanks, the T-32 has slightly better penetration on a much smaller gun. Look at the British, they have better penetration, but not near the post pen damage. The French 90mms have similar performance, other than reload of course.
Here is an actual comparison of the turret armor, the difference is much greater than 50mm. I even made sure to pick solid parts of the armor on both, avoiding obvious weakpoints like the optics.
True that the Tiger 2 has 20mm more of effective armor on the hull, the T32 has no hull weakpoints like the Tiger 2’s machine gun port. Armor profiles aren’t very effective when there is a glaring weakpoint. Regardless if the Tiger 2 had similar hull armor or 800mm of composite armor sloped at 60 degrees, the turret can be shot through with relative ease. Almost every time that the hull is exposed, the weaker turret is also exposed. I see you don’t quite understand turret armor because of the comparison you tried to make earlier.
False. The T-32 with T41 APCBC rounds can always penetrate the upper front plate of a Panther to ranges of up to 1700 meters. Stop making claims that are BATANTLY FALSE. It took me 15 seconds to prove this wrong. I even went futher, and gave the Panther 21 degrees of horizontal angle, and the T-32E1 can still penetrate it at 500m with the tank being angled.
Depends on the map. It is also pretty good at peaking over hills as well. The T-32 being “made for that” doesn’t matter much in this game. The Falcon SPAA wasn’t “made for” anti-tank warfare like it is used in game, but that doesn’t stop people from getting nukes in it. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but you have destroyed your own credibility here with false claims and skewed comparisons. Even if the T-32E1 was the worst 7.7 heavy, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve to be 7.7. The Soviet 7.7s have poorer guns (in every aspect), worse turret rotation speeds, have virtually no vertical guidance, and must show the entire vehicle in order to fire at targets over hills. The only advantage they have is better frontal armor, but as you said
being a 7.7, so that nullifies the armor advantage. Thus, under your own logic, the IS-4M, T-10A, and IS-6 are worse heavy tanks at 7.7. I checked and the T10-A has a comparable armor thickness on it’s lower front plate and a driver’s hatch vulnerability and the IS-6 has an optics vulnerability, driver’s hatch vulnerability, and almost the exact same amount of upper front plate armor as the T-32. So, it seems the IS-6 would actually be the worst heavy 7.7 tank, according to the points you TRIED to make about the T-32. I look forward to your reply.