T54s at 8.0

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
107

I would say that the Maus and E-100 could go to 7.3.
The biggest problem is that the Maus has an overpressure bug going on right now - and its internals are extremely easy to overpressure (and kill in one hit). The E-100 doesn’t have this issue currently.

The IS-3 could certainly go to 6.7. Its turret rotation is horrendous and the gun reload and gun depression adds to the horrible feel, certainly.

The IS-4M going to 7.0 is also fair IMO. Quite insane that it’s 7.7 currently.

Ferdinand/Elefant could certainly go to 6.3, and were 6.3.

The 268, however - I would say is superior to the Ferdinand due to its higher mobility, relatively better gun, and better armor. Along with the very useful 14.5mm. 6.7 is more fitting.

The Ho-Ris are better than you give them credit for, though. I’d reckon the Prototype could be 6.3 and the Production 7.0. They’re quite nimble overall and their armor is very strong.

The M6A2E1 does have very good stats and the gun is quite good, it’s also not very slow - so 6.0 is a bit of a stretch IMO. 6.3 is quite fine. The T26E5 is also one of the best 6.7s in the game, so I wouldn’t say 6.3 is right. The E5 is extremely strong.

The IS-2 (regular) is fine at 5.7. It was 5.7 for a long time, I played it at 5.7. And it was good. Not OP. Just good. About right. Wouldn’t say 5.3.

The 1944 to 5.7, though - definitely not. It’s not a fantastic vehicle but the armor’s considerably stronger and I’d reckon 6.3 was on the edge of “usable” - REALLY don’t know why it went to 6.7 when the Tiger 2H is considerably better, especially the premium one.

T95 at 6.7 makes perfect sense. No qualms there.

The Tortoise is quite bad, yes. I would say not quite 5.7-6.0, though. 6.3 would be absolutely perfect and would go along with the beautiful existing 6.3 lineup.

Black Prince at 5.3, especially with the reverse buff - I’d reckon is a bit too low. It is extremely slow, however. I would say 5.7 would be fine, though. 6.0 perhaps to be sure.

I would also add the T-10M, which really shouldn’t be 8.3. The IS-7 is the same BR and considerably better, and vehicles such as the Chinese Type 59 and Type 69 at 8.0 are honestly better. And a couple others.

108

the T-54 is very survivable, i instantly get scared when im in an uptier and see a T-54 as the armor is very thick and its unlikely my round will go through in any good spot frontlaly

1 Like
109

hell nah! the IS-4M is nearly impenetrable by any 6.7 vehicle, and same with the IS-3! not even my 8.0 tanks can pen the IS-4M and they have trouble with IS-3’s

110

I suggest you take the time to get to know vehicles you’re facing in the garage. Using the protection analysis, and generally improving your battle performance by thinking more about your actions.

111

I regret to inform you that every single nation in the game has a vehicle at 6.3 or below that can penetrate the IS-4M’s entire frontal plate.

China, Type 63, 6.3.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1082
Screenshot_10821708×753 89.2 KB

Italy, M109, 6.0.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1083
Screenshot_10831403×643 76.6 KB

France, ELC bis, 6.0.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1084
Screenshot_10841665×755 88.7 KB

Sweden, Ikv 103, 4.0. Yes, 4.0.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1085
Screenshot_10851687×802 90.8 KB

Israel, M51, 6.0.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1086
Screenshot_10861651×737 88 KB

Germany, JPz-4-5, 6.3.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1077
Screenshot_10771671×804 90 KB

USA, M109G, 6.3.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1078
Screenshot_10781491×744 82.5 KB

USSR, ASU-85, 6.3.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1079
Screenshot_10791697×827 96.7 KB

Britain, Ratel 90, 6.3.

Spoiler

Screenshot_1080
Screenshot_10801692×748 91.8 KB

Japan, STA-A2, 6.3. (And A1)

Spoiler

Screenshot_1081
Screenshot_10811705×804 91.8 KB

Every. Single. One.
And this is penetrating it frontally through the thickest part of the hull.
Not from the side, in a flank. For a heavy tank.

112

Now do the same thing without using HE or HEAT.

The Is-4m could maybe go down to 7.3, but any lower will not be balanced well.

113

And 90% of those vehicles are barely functional. Its like saying the Archer can pen 5.7 heavy tanks therefore those tanks should come down. Early HEAT also has awful postpen that will often fail to disable the IS4 on a ufp hit. The driver often eats the entire HEAT round unless incredibly precisely placed (low velocity HEAT shells plus short barrels… not the best sniping weapons).

4 Likes
114

No? I’ve used like 5 out of 10 of those vehicles and I liked them all?
You’re literally making things up to try and discredit the argument.

115

You are a very facetious person.

116

Downtiering t54 so they can club WWII tanks isnt a solution. We had it with the IS 3 and IS 6 at 7.0 and look where they are now.

1 Like
117

Ratel is utter trash and often the joke of how ‘modern’ vehicles are still inferior to WW2 ones.

ELC BIS barely functions. 2 man crew and frontally weak to .50s. <1kg filler 750m/s round is awful and will nearly never OHK anything.

Ikv is at 4.0 for a good reason. Low velocity HEAT that has terrible postpen with armor that isn’t even rated to .50s.

ASU and JPZ are mediocre fixed arc tank destroyers that are going to be situationally effective. The same problem with almost all fixed arc vehicles, they can only cover certain areas of the map and are awful in the ~50% of maps that are urban. Not an effective counter to an IS4 if the IS4 is even remotely competent.

M109G is rolling dice even on a perfect hit. I’d NEVER want to encounter an IS4 frontally with it and the IS4 is one of the tanks most likely to survive a frontal hit.

Japan STAs are fine. But lets not act like Japan isn’t one of the least played nations.

That leaves the M51 that everyone knows is underteired but has no/poor lineups to back it up.

‘making up things’ lol. as if low teir HEAT hasn’t ALWAYS been considered poor and all of these vehicles sitting at low BRs with high pen are just there because the devs ‘forgot’ to upteir them. They are there for a reason: they are bad.

1 Like
118

Ikv is sad…

~400mm of pen at 4.0, but terrible postpen, speed, and gun handling. I soooo want to love the tank, (I loved the Ikv 72 at 1.7), but its just… not good.

119

You literally only have 1 game in it. Where you did nothing.
And you’re also a new player with a 0.5 K/D. What were you thinking even giving an opinion?

It not only fires HEATFS and not HEAT, making most of your points moot.
But it has a high hp/t, a fast neutral traverse, and some of the best gun depression values in the game…

Why even try to argue with someone who actually knows what he’s talking about?
One of my most played tanks (in fact - the tank I have the MOST battles in) is the Ru 251, which fires 90mm HEATFS (same shell and platform as the JPz). I’ve played the Ikv 103, I’ve played the Ratel 90, I’ve played the M109s.

And your entire post @Zephoid is just pure lies. I’m surprised that you can just come to the forum and gaslight people that these tanks suck.

120

The Ikv sucks.
Flat out.

Yes, you can punch through anything at your BR, but your gun handling is atrocious, so getting it on target is a pain, you can be .30caled from the front, and post-pen is bleh. Velocity is also pretty bad, and given you tend to fight stuff with APHE and WW2 crew layouts, you suffer heavily.

1 Like
121

Again. You literally have ONE game in it.
And only 169 RB games IN TOTAL. WHY are you even giving your opinion?

Screenshot_1104
Screenshot_11041219×918 85.5 KB

Screenshot_1105
Screenshot_11051205×925 90.4 KB

122

Because I can.

I generally play arcade, yes (It performs atrociously there as well), but the consensus among most people is that the Ikv isnt good.

123

NO? It’s literally a completely different vehicle between arcade and realistic? They’re two completely different modes where vehicles perform completely differently, especially those such as the Ikv 103?

Arcade is a gamemode for beginners to learn the game and has very little relation to Realistic. I played it in 2014 for a two years and then moved on. Small, armorless tank destroyers are far less effective in Arcade because they cannot rely on positioning or stealth which is the crux of their gameplay in Realistic/Simulator (the ACTUAL gamemodes of War Thunder).

Outright insulting.

2 Likes
124

The Ikv 103 sucks

125

actual gamemodes of wt
Aight lemme take the gloves off mf…

sigh.

Yes, they are different. However, the viecles performance is generally comparatively similar, if not better (At least in raw stats.), then realistic.

The Ikv having horrid gun handling, the post-pen, and the velocity would be bigger issues in realistic.

Realistic/sim/arcade are simply different, one is not superior over another. I find arcade’s fast gameplay preferable to realistics far more plodding gameplay, and I find the CAS to be far more… tolerable, to say the least.

126

What is the big difference?