Either 3BM46 or 3BM42, but most likely the former.
At that BR it could be a slower alternative to the T-80B that offers better thermals, ammo and armor in return.
1 Like
Yeah I could get behind that
The penetration difference is immaterial, there’s basically nothing the 105mm will go through that the 88mm can’t. It’s also a larger shell, meaning volumetric will troll you more often.
The filler difference is nice, and does overpressure, but the long 88 already oneshots fairly consistently with well placed shots, and will at minimum cripple whatever it penetrates.
Meanwhile, you trade the biggest advantage the 88 has compared to it’s contemporary guns, the short reload. It means you’re more easily able to push targets during trades, it make you more capable of engaging multiple vehicles at once, it’s more forgiving for misplaced shots, etc. You’re just more flexible overall.
For reference, guns that the 88mm outreloads or matches that the 105mm can’t include: The American short 90mm, the Soviet 85 and 100mms, the British 32 pounder, the Japanese 105 and 155mm, the French 100 and 155mm, and the 142mm ACRA launcher.
I prefer the flexibility of the shorter reload over the increased lethality (of what’s already a very lethal gun) on the 105mm.
2 Likes
They just need to put the all the 2A7 variants (HU and STRV 122B) at a higher br
T-90M with it’s pretend armour can also join them. Takes all the fun out of the game when you are pixel hunting and these 2 tanks just absorb rounds. Currently if you are not using a German or Russian tank no point in playing.
reload speed… 88 still autopens most things tiger 2 meets and still 1 shots almost everything.
You would hardly see Soviet 85s unless your in a full downtier, plus, the 85mm can only hit you in the side. Which is the same effect that would occur if the IS-3 was 7.0, and the Tiger II was 7.0, which would make them equal.
So what, you suggest the Tiger II 105 and Tiger II Hs become 7.0?
Because, you literally just said you agree with me, fire rate decides all, and the IS-3 has 1 shell per the Tiger IIs 2.75 shells.
The Tiger can bounce 122mm rounds as well, even though yes the front of the turret is the easy pen spot, it often eats the 122mm due to volumetric.
The T-44, ASU-85, Type 62 and 63 all exist at the tier. The ASU having enough pen on the APHE to go through the turret front, and the latter three all having HEAT that can punch through everywhere. Being able to bounce the APHE and push them before they have a chance to load HEAT is a sizable advantage.
No, I want the Tiger II 105 to be moved back down to 6.7. The only reason it got moved up in the first place is because it has inflated stats over the base Tiger IIs due to being a removed vehicle that’s only played by experienced players.
Compared to the pixel sized weakspots the Tiger IIs have to work with against an IS-3? It’s not even close. Yeah, the Tiger II’s conical mantlet is a shell black hole, but the best shot a Tiger II has against an IS-3, even at point blank range, is the tiny strip that is the driver’s optic under the mantlet. A shot which is pratically impossible if the IS is moving, which it always should be doing unless it’s about to fire.
Sure, you can go for the barrel, at which point the IS player can just track you with the DshK and use it’s excellent reverse gear to pull back into cover.
Personally, I advocate for a fire rate increase for the ISs and all other late war/early cold war heavies that are seriously held back by tortuously slow reloads. Not to the point where they’re matching or outreloading tanks like the Tiger II, just to the point where missing a shot doesn’t allow whatever you’re fighting to freely push you unless you’re 500m out.
1 Like
T-44 is borderline useless vs a Tiger, unless you can break his smol barrel.
ASU-85 is super situational, being easily killed.
Type 62 is a rare event tank (so it’s very rare to see), I’m not even sure what the type 63 is.
I would say the scariest thing to see would be the T-44-100, okay armor, but the 100mm that is very good and can kill the KT frontally, but still has a long load time and poor turret armor.
That’s crazy talk saying an already super potent tank should meet 5.7s.
I like the IS-6s and understand why their reload is terrible, and everything else, but that’s why these things are balanced by br. Keep in mind, the IS-6 was once a 7.0, no other heavy has been brought up so much. It’s not on par with either the Maus or IS-4 in the slightest. But was it outliers of players? Stats? Etc?
It’s like me playing the T-72B3, it’s slow, not the greatest in armor, but has a decent gun. 97% of abrams players (before top tier abrams premiums were added), kept hitting center mass on my upper plate. Which bounced. Had they tried to aim even the slightest bit, it would’ve been over for me.
I think people facing the Is-6 or IS-3 and saying it’s too good have a skill issue, and haven’t played it. My buddy did the whole of the USA tech tree, and has been working on USSR, I have never heard him get so mad playing tanks. He says the is-3 is a dumpster fire.
And he is a good player for a relatively new one.
I stopped playing the Is-6 since it’s a dead tank, it’s very hard to play now, and it’s even a very rare tank to see. I see more IS-3s or IS-4s than I do IS-6s, or even Mauses.
T-44 has trolly armor and mobility, being very able to track and barrel a Tiger II to death at closer ranges.
And? The advantage of being able to outreload it still applies, doubly so since it has HEAT that isn’t often mained. This means that it will usually bounce APHE off you and then load a HEAT shell, making it all the more critical you kill it before it reloads.
Both are Chinese tech tree vehicles, and not that uncommon.
There aren’t many 5.7s left, and what lineups exist almost always have something that can deal with a Tiger II of any variety.
In fact, due to the worse armor at the tier, it’s even more advantageous to be in the 88mm Tiger II, since a faster fire rate is an even larger advantage.
It also had an invisible armor plate behind the mantlet which blocked pretty much every conventional AP round from getting through. Even after that was fixed, it remained a very mobile and trolly vehicle, with armor that can stand up to any AP/APHE in the game outside the tiny, credit card sized slot that is the gunner’s optics. Again, a weakspot that becomes drastically harder to hit if the IS player has a working brain and keeps moving between shots.
The IS-6 does struggle somewhat with where it is now, but it caused far more struggling when it was at a lower BR. That’s why I’m pushing for the reload buff for it and other heavies at the tier, a way to make it more comfortable without forcing lower tiered vehicles to be mere food for it. Same with the IS-3.
1 Like
Not really a good point. Also untrue cause the M4A3E2 started life as a 4.7 and is now 5.7 lmao
I’ve played it, it would be fine at 7.3 but not 7.0
Which tank?
The IS-6. I’ve played both though.
1 Like
Considering how shameless some BR proposals are, to the point one nation gets the most of compression while doing absurd raises like the ontos going up to 7.3, i’ll quote this from —ironically— a “Russia op” post:
5 Likes
That’s why I said the IS-6 should be 7.3
It’ll still be terrible at 8.3, but 7.7 is often in 8.7 or 8.3 matches it seems.
(Or you just get uptiers playing Russia, and no I’m not joking. A whole squad of my buddies had been playing German / USA, getting minor uptiers / downtiers.
The moment I swapped to Russia with another guy, it was constant uptier from there on out).
But, anyways the Is-6 can be killed by the M4 jumbo at 6.3 frontally, m18s, etc. so I can’t ever see it justifying a 7.7 br.
The biggest weakness is by far the gunner optic, followed by the roof hatches, which you cannot hide either, especially if you go to engage a target.
The ontos can fire 6 HEAT-FS recoiless rifles.
If played properly, it can kill quite a lot. 7.3 would be a sweet spot for it, where it isn’t less effective, but it won’t be able to bully 5.7s anymore.
Oh sure it can! the same way a maus can be defeated by a m36 jackson. These tiny ass never going to happen in a real game “weakspots” are not valid to bring up.
You consistently underrate ussr vehicles and massively overrate usa/ger/other vehicles.
How does it do that?
Yeah, because Gaijin is unfair to the USSR tech tree BR ratings. They moved the IS-3 to 7.3 so people would play the BTR. They added the Finnish KV-2 at the same BR as the Soviet one, which doesn’t have a machine gun or the insane cheek armor the Finnish version has, and many more issues I could point out. For example, the T-34-85 has two versions with a gap in BR, and the only difference in the later version is an extra crew member. But the earlier version has Stalium armor, making it pointless to play the other one at a different BR.
In no way is this true
No logic found, IS-3 was already 7.3 in the past before BTR came into the game. The 7.0 change just got reverted because they found out it overperformed (obviously)
Blame compression but the things you point out are very small in difference
And the much faster reload?
1 Like
every us tank listed should not be changed they re fine where they are