Oh yeah i wasnt saying it was better, just that i have lost to it before due to the spall liner saving it.
the 2s38 but is pretty damn strong compared to the other lights of similar style
Having the spall liner work? Thats actually a shocker lmao ive never had it save me lol or save me from killing a 9040.
Because I don’t prefer to seal club, and I’m currently grinding Italy. 50k away from the Leo2a7
The gun is not effective enough to engage 5.3s, and most 3.3s and up can pen the KV-1E, but it trades its better gun Zis-5 for armor. The armor stops some frontal turret and side hull hits, but its weak spots are all the same.
That’s why early Cold War and mid Cold War need to be separated more.
When I spaded my T-54 I also was squared the whole time.
T29 isn’t rare. Anytime I play 6.3 or 6.7 it’s always 7.0 with T29 / m551(76) spam.
My kd is as good as it is in the IS-6 because I have a high level crew for it. My T29 crew is level 81 I believe.
It’s undeniable the T29 is too low.
It’s undeniable the IS-6 sees too many 8.7 matches while being out gunned by miles.
My kd could certainly be higher in both if I was really trying / adding bushes to them.
nah it has a far more reliably gun over the beglit by miles mate and far better ammo choices.
yeah its sucked up a few 9.3 shots from me man M111 and what not
Better ammo choices? Sure
Better gun? Eh.
it is a more effective gun in game. unfortunately.
In terms of what though? Velocity? Spall? Component damage?
It’s a heavy tank with a poor gun. Balancing it by ensuring it’s still good in full uptiers is how we get complete lunacy like the 4.7 Jumbo.
And a properly angled KV-1E can beat any 3.3 gun outside the Achilles. It’s only vulnerable to high performance guns if unangled or caught out, a decent compromise for otherwise excellent armor.
What weakspots? The KV-1E/B famously have no consistent frontal weakspots. There are tiny strips of armor not covered by the applique plates, but they’re so small as to be unhitable outside of point blank range, and volumetric will troll you if you’re even slightly off. There’s also the drivers port, which is a tiny shot to hit, much more difficult if the KV is playing properly and moving when people are aiming at it, and usually fully bushed up.
The ZiS has worse armor at 4.7, and it still works just fine there, as proven by your own stats in it.
Then maybe that should have factored into this list of yours, rather than merely compressing the early Cold War vehicles into the late WW2 ones.
Personal experience vs personal experience. I rarely notice it in matches, although part of that might be the visual similarity to the T34, and the fact that they’re fought the exact same way.
The difference between a level 100 and level 81 crew is basically nothing. You’ve probably got all the important skills by now, leaving just niche utilities like radio operator stuff.
Give it a reload buff then, make it work like a heavy medium. Don’t send it back down to terrorize things that rely on APHE.
While I applaud you for not abusing bushes, uptiering vehicles based entirely on “I’m pretty sure I would be doing better if I was taking this seriously” is not the strongest basis for an argument.
1 Like
- The T-14 in my opinion is a far more effective vehicle. With super trolly armor, better gun, and low speed stabilizer thus is why it’s higher in BR.
- “much more difficult if the KV is playing properly and moving when people are aiming at it, and usually fully bushed up.”
This comment makes me think “wiggling” as it were, and bushes really to you are how things are played properly. If I mess up a shot, I may reverse and try to angle… but never will I wiggle, and rarely do I bush things up. - Drivers port, machine gun port, lower plate, gun breech, gunners sight, turret roof sights, hull machine gunners roof optic. These are all spots I have died to / killed a KV-1B/E and or Zis-5
-
Considering I have only brought the is-6 and t54 down, I wouldn’t I’m compression a lot of those Cold War vehicle into WW2, in fact it’s the opposite. T29, T34, T30, are Cold War. 1946, 1949, and 1957 if I remember correctly are the dates of these three.
Conquerer going up is also going up.
IS-3 is mid 1945, IS-6 in 1946.
(M41, m56, m50, m551(76), etc are all Vietnam war era tanks btw). -
T34s and T29s are quite similar yes. But as the T29 is premium, it’s pretty common.
-
Level determines a lot. Btw my Is-6 crew is level 150 and expert, my level in the T29 is 81.
It helps in survivability immensely, and can cause me to win situations I was would’ve been unable to with a lower level crew.
So imagine they were both a basic level 81 for instance. The IS-6 would preform far far worse.
- I think they have their historical load times, (this would be like the abrams fictional reload speed and the like in game, I’d rather see accurate and true reloads over fiction).
- Thank you, but I legitimately play for fun. I don’t try to “stat pad” as it were.
The KV-1E and B are the only premium vehicles that you could consider pay to win.
They deserve at least 4.3.
That new tiger pack ost and west is very very much pay to win
They aren’t vastly superior to the tanks at their own BR.
They also keep the cupola weakspot of all the H1s, which makes it worse than the E.
4 Likes
Lmao out of every single death I’ve had in those tigers, only 1 had been a cupola shot.
I like how you didn’t even mention the KV-1C I cannot even begin to explain how many bounces I had earlier while playing 5.7 in a 5.0
Why? Because people carelessly fire, at the upper hill instead of targeting things like any give weakpoint on the tank.
I was bouncing m6a1 (T1e1 etc), hell, I even bounce a 90mm. But then someone got smart on the enemy team and aimed (was fighting the USA btw), the only tank higher than me on the score board was the VK.30.02
It’s a bad argument to say that’s pay to win, when, you cannot pay for it, and it doesn’t guarantee a win when there are more effective weapons at certain brs.
T29 being an great example.
If you’re comparing the T14 to the ZiS, I would say that the T14 is likely better, but not enough for a BR difference. The ZiS is faster and more agile due to the ~50% more horsepower than the T14 with a similar weight, and the difference in armor is minimal.
Wiggling is one way, but heavy tanking 101 is to never let the enemy take an accurate shot on your weakspots. That means if you aren’t about to fire, you angle your tank from the enemy and drive forwards and backwards, thus causing the point they need to aim for to shift more radically than if you were just driving straight at them.
These are both small, volumetric nightmares that aren’t trivial to hit if you aren’t at point blank range and the KV-1 is smart enough to stay moving.
Has identical armor to the UFP, unless you’re cresting a ridge and allowing it to normalize. Not a consistent weakspot by any means.
This can work, but again the weakspot is small and far from consistent. Hit too close to the center, and the breach eats all the spalling. Hit too far to the side, and you’ll bounce. And again, wiggling the turret and driving backwards and forwards makes this shot much harder. Plus it’s usually fully bushed too.
???
The hull machine gunner doesn’t have an optic, he has a hatch which is almost flat and instabounces any round that hits it. And the turret sights are so small and narrow that APHE doesn’t fuse if it hits them, it just passes straight through. If you’re very lucky, you can get a tiny amount of spall to wound one of the turret crew. That’s it.
Nope. Work on the projects began during/shortly after WW2, starting in March '44 with the T29, then the T30 in September '44, and finally the T34 in 1945. Accordingly, the first prototypes were delivered sometime during WW2 for the T29 (sources are vague), March 1945 for the T30, and April 1948
The M103, which was a direct result of the knowledge gained from these prototypes, started in 1950 and hit mass production in 1953 (Although there were teething issues that resulted in them only entering service in 1957).
It’s a pack premium, and a fairly expensive one too. It’s also buffing up a lineup that’s nowhere near as popular as the powerful American 6.7 one. Not much to be gained debating this, it’s literally personal experience vs personal experience.
We don’t know thier historical load times because the IS-6 is a prototype that never went anywhere, using a gun that always went nowhere. The D30T was an upgraded D25T with an improved breach and fume extractor, intended to increase the rate of fire. To what extent is unknown, since AFAIK the D30 was never mounted to the IS-6 before cancellation.
Either way, reload is a balance factor first and foremost. It should be based on reality as much as feasible, but liberties can be taken in the name of balance.
Otherwise, get ready for Type 90s/10s with a 2 second reload.
@ 2:33 “in 1947 the T29 pilot vehicles (2) were finally delivered”
“The T30 was delivered a year later, but was already cancelled, back in 1945, as the army didn’t need such a large gun”
He later goes on to say, that a 120mm was mounted, but it didn’t arrive until 1954, in which, the T30 was rearmed to a “T34”
Also, basing the “start project date” shouldn’t be the metric used here, Rather delivery date.
So I was actually mistaken by a few years, but I knew they were all Cold War vehicles.
$26 USD is expensive?
They bolster the 7.0 dream team lineup.
Also, we all know everyone would riot if the IS-6 got any buffs. There are people fueled by pure hatred for that vehicle.
Lastly, reload is another thing of pros / cons that can change br placement. Thus indeed the Type 90s/10s would likely be far higher in br.
Ho-Ri prototype should be back to 6.0, which is even worse than Jagpanther, it’s armor is not good, even 85mm gun could pen the front armor.
3 Likes
Nope, the best way for IS-6 is to delete the BR471D shell and move back to 7.3, it is totally worse than T-10A
I don’t have access to Spookston’s sources, but they appear to partially disagree with those used by the online sources I’ve found. According to them:
- The first T29 pilot was completed July 1945 and send to Milford Testing Ground to gather info. The first production T29 was delivered in 1947, but the pilot vehicles continued to be used in testing until the project was cancelled. In fact, AFAIK all the production T29s had E level modifications done to them, so the base T29 in game is likely modeling one of those pilots delivered in 1945.
- The T30 pilots, being ordered at the same time, were delievered not long afterwards, and remained in testing alongside the T29 pilots throughout the mid/late 40’s.
- The T34 was a direct continuation of the project, with it’s pilots (three known to exist, two based on T30 chassis’s, one on a T29 chassis) being delivered for testing in 1947. This date is known due to problems with the gun causing the hospitalization of two crew members due to fumes being ejected into the turret along with the ammo, causing a flareout. This actually led to the aspirator style bore evacuator, which became common on post war vehicles.
He does not go on to say that the 120mm was only mounted on the T34 in 1954, because that makes no sense. The T43, a development of the T34 with a slightly redesigned gun and reworked, lightened chassis, was greenlit in 1948, saw it’s first pilot made in 1951, and production starting in 1952. This is the project that eventually led to the M103.
Not for no reason. The thing was an absolute monster on release, thanks to it’s bugged armor and way lower BR. Plus a lack of HEAT shells to counter it.
It’s no longer widely considered a monster at it’s current BR, but people remember how it used to be, which is why there’s so much resistance to lowering it. Leaving it where it is but buffing the reload would likely be acceptable to the majority.
Type 10s are already top tier, there’s nowhere else for them to go until Gaijin starts adding speculative tanks like the T-14 and the 140mm armed prototypes.
That shell isn’t even that good. You have to be absolutely perfect side face to kill a maus.
Let alone other targets are still quite strong against it.