If it got its current mistakes corrected it would be fine at 3.7. It has 100 more horsepower than it should.
3 Likes
Heavy tanks were a thing. They were developed and built for a reason. War Thunder denies that reason.
3 Likes
Do you have any source/suggestion about the gun on that thing using APDS and HEAT? I already use that thing as high as 9.0 decks to screw with the malignant disease known as IFVs.
Also, do you know bychance how much the APCBC-HE round is supposed to pen in reality? WT’s formula tends to punish high-filler rounds quite hard.
Merely undoing the years-old postpen nerf for all HEAT and HEATFS would fix this. We are still globally paying the price for a nerf thrown in exactly one week after the M46s saw their M348 shell corrected from then-useless 210mm pen HEAT to the current 305mm pen HEATFS. Back then, HEAT spalled as well as solid shot does, which led to swarms of M46s ANNIHILATING the then-new swarms of IS-6s. And even though a 122 can still today just glance in a Patton’s general direction and annihilate it in return, newbies in their “immortal IS-6” got trashed enough by the M46 that every single HEAT round was nerfed into utter oblivion, where for the most part even today it’s basically APCR that pens slopes.
This is why all the HEAT go-karts sit as low as they do. They pen everything, but struggle to finish the job between terrible postpen, iffy reload speed, and often so little armor that a .50cal spray paralyzes/ignites them.
The Ikv 103 is quite good, tbfh. Hilariously tiny, amazingly mobile, ROFL levels of gun depression, pens everything, obviously a glass cannon, MV is not great but usable if the 106mm recoilless rifles say anything, and the only thing holding it back is the postpen on HEAT.
5 Likes
APDS yes, the gun its based off of had a prototype for it. HEAT no, but the original suggestion for it had it.
And no I dont lol, that thing is shrouded in bofors prototype mystery
Ikv 103 sucks because its gun handling is horrid and it can be 7.7d in an instant. With postpen buffs it would probably only go up to maybe 5.0 or something, it really isnt that good.
2 Likes
Mind finding a link to this original suggestion? It’s probably buried in the Old Forum’s Implemented Suggestions section, since it was added to the game obviously.
I mean so can the M56 which has far slower reload, and that is 6.7. And in that thing, you are often in the situation where you have the wrong round loaded for the target in your face - M82 can’t pen fronts of most opponents while the HEAT can but does often xxxx all for postpen. With much worse gun handling and especially wobble when stopping.
Hence why I think with improved postpen on all HEAT the Ikv 103 could easily be far higher than 6.0.
1 Like
M56 has a much faster reload and actual velocity on its gun, plus better traverse and APHE, plus its got so little armor it doesnt set off fuzes- something the ikv 103 doesnt have.
Like seriously that velocity on the Ikv is like 500m/s its very, very bad.
Right here.
3 Likes
But in exchange the Ikv 103 is honestly more mobile, smaller, has much better gun depression. Also you can’t call 500 m/s bad when the 106mm recoilless rifles have the same velocity and even worse reloads. Also wasn’t the Ikv 103’s reload artificially shortened to like 8-9 sec, which is hardly any slower than the 90mm on the M56? It used to be godawful at 13sec or more years ago, have you played it recently?
Also, that suggestion does not have any links to information about each machine in detail. It states the SAV m/48 (the correct name for the autoloader monster) had a 240mm pen HEAT round, but doesn’t mention any other info about different shell types.
However, that suggestion does mention the Ikv 103 is missing an APHE round with 122mm pen, which would be a godsend in the side shots it usually is able to get off due to its tiny size and quiet engine.
Yes he can. Both can be bad.
But beyond that the 106 mm recoiless rifles actually have something that mitigates this, which is their ranging MGs.
It’s 6 seconds right now with an ace crew. 7.8 with a fully stock one. Assuming you mean the M56.
One must not forget that the M56 also received a reload rate buff for its 90 mm cannon, making it faster reloading than any manually loaded 90 mm.
5 Likes
Seriously if you dont know how to make the it work then you dont know how to play War Thunder .You cant utilize the amazing gun depression and the cover provided by hills.I can see by your game count you are a relative newbie and it shows.103 has twice the penning power of the thickest WW2 available as far as I can see.
I’ll take your word on that one and give it another go
WW2 vehicles facing vehicles form 20 years later is about as silly as it gets ,it may be fun but its pretty stupid and not what I expected when I started this game.
Well I said you were a new kid due to lack of games but are you a kid? I mean if you really have no interest or appreciation of WW2 then maybe leave the subject alone and let those who do have their say.
3 Likes
Those things tend to be mounted on go-karts with full turrets tbf, and you often get more of em, with the ontos having six.
Unfortunately, yeah. I would love that round for the Ikv 103 tho :/
Tbh the Ikv will always just be that one low tier derp gun that pens through everything but isnt good, and it really isnt a balance problem given that thing can be 7.7d from the front.
It did happen irl, though- and again, gaijn has correctly chosen to balance off of capability, not era, which lets trees beyond the big three actually be useful ingame.
I didnt say that…? I very much am interested in WW2 and have done significant research into it, but I also know that WT is a game and not a mirror of real life.
1 Like
I played flanders and just hid behind a gentle slope about 500mm from the half way line .I think I got about 8 without even moving(ok no cas lucky me) I could barley see half of what I was shooting at but i was one shot kills nearly all the time and some heavy Russian stuff.Cant really think of what WW2 era vehicles would have been the same.
It was fun but it felt wrong as I am in a a vehicle Sweden still used in the 70s firing HEATFS and I am facing WW2 heavies the size of houses.The pointlessness of the WW2 heavy under those circumstances is apparent.200 mm of armour should make you some kind of king but you are a beggar when facing weapons that can pen double that.Like having chain mail when facing fire arms.
It is no surprise some people get so tetchy when somebody suggests era separation,they see their meal ticket flying away.I see the attraction in seal clubbing obsolete tanks dont get me wrong ,its fun,like hitting newbies at one BR is fun and it makes those all important stats rise for many I guess.
2 Likes
Most vehicles used twenty years after WW2 were heavily upgraded and bore little resemblance to what they were originally accept maybe in some third world scenario and WT is not that is it? Everything about the game dictates a WW2 scenario,camo ,decals,even historical challenges.OK its done badly but its there.You cant deny the interest in WW2 and even WW2 separation in this game…unless you are relatively new.I consider myself new in many ways with 13000 games compared to some on here.
Then you should understand why so many just want to be able to immerse themselves game play wise into a WW2 game.WT can be a brilliant WW2 recreation when it wants to be and it was more so about 3 years ago but its giving that aspect away and that is a shame.
WT is a game but its a game that could have simply cut itself in two or even three and be a much better game instead of putting Modern MBTS on the same maps as WW2 and making a mad jumble of nations on each side. Opportunity missed.
I agree that the era separation ship has probably long since sailed if I am honest.In some respects I am coming to terms with the era mix but it doesn’t make me or anybody else wrong.
1 Like
First, hell no because the japanese tanks are overtiered. Second, the japanese guns are noticeably better performing, with Type 4 Kou being far better against angled armor than PzGr39 and has nearly 3x the filler.
The long gun Pz IVs could go up by one step, but I don’t see any more than that being fair to them. They’re just not very good with bouncy suspensions, giant profiles, and armor that works better as a suggestion.
The long 50mm is worse than the 75mm M3 in pretty much every way except shell velocity, and I’d take the latter every single time.
7 Likes
“Armor is weak”
Dude they have near TIGER level of protection if you have the tracks installed. WTF do you mean?
2 Likes
The UFP alone isn’t what makes the Tiger’s armor strong. It’s the fact that the whole tank has decent all round armor and that it is basically a perfect box which allows for it to angle. By themselves the flat plates of the Tiger are simply not special.
The Pz.IV H simply cannot angle to nearly the same degree as a Tiger, not only because the side armor is extremely weak, but it also angles inwards. And while the 95 mm effective upper glacis is more respectable due to much lower BR, you still have a glaringly weak turret that even a Bofors L40 can penetrate with the add on armor equipped.
8 Likes
And they can frontally pen a 4.7 Churchill MKVII, OR any Sherman outside the Jumbo’s…
So why are they Fighting the Matilda, M3 lee and shit?
2 Likes
A Tiger can angle and be over 150mm effective anywhere. A Pz IV’s frontal turret is always 50mm flat and you can’t ever hide it.
6 Likes
I agree and also we have the T34 to face which lately does seem to be fitted with Stalinium as the conspiracy theorists always stated : ) .Panzer IV is fine sitting still sniping but something of a risk on the move.
As WT Wiki says Churchill VII has frontal weak spots: machine gun ports both on the hull and turret are only 50 mm thick.Churchill seems to be a tank where people really do go and look up how to take one out.The Panzer iv has a good accurate gun and if anything is going to hit those weak spots with any certainty it will be the Panzer IV.
Post war Swedish like the 103 will make the Churchill VII a joke more than anything else at that BR
1 Like