Wouldn’t faster acceleration be better? Higher top speed is nice but I think I’d rather get up to speed faster then have a few extra mph.
Also, it’s not exactly a privilege to have to fight US heavies.
Depends. If both tanks can reach the top speed reliably then top speed is better.
And sure, fighting something like T26E5 with Tiger 1 isn’t all that fun, but it’s still miles better than dealing with Tiger 2h using Jumbo 76
Meanwhile Tiger 2 finds T32 extremely annoying, and then T32E1 is a nightmare, it has less weakspot for the 88mm than the T95 lol
1 Like
Except Tiger 2h is 1 BR higher than Jumbo, and is an extremely popular tank that a jumbo faces each and every single game in large quantities.
T32 on the other hand is 2 BRs higher than Tiger 2h and is a niche tank hardly anyone plays, let alone T32E1 which is a full uptier for a 2h and is widely known to be absolute hot garbage. I don’t even remember when was the last time i’ve seen one in battle
I find all the 7.7 heavies are utter garbage, literally ALL of them just a huge pile of cow dung, somehow it’s the only full uptier for 6.7 that doesn’t feel too much power creep, unlike 6.7 we have T34 and Tiger II both are a menace in the right hands, IS-2 is the only one that is dogwater. 7.7 vs 8.7 is so helpless, might as well don’t spawn heavies at all if you see uptiers to 8.7, unlike 6.7 facing 7.0/7.3/7.7s, Tiger 2 and T34 still slays.
Somua SM is good, while Caernarvon, Conqueror and T-10A are somewhat fine. Maybe also Maus and E100 if they get good matchmaking. Rest, just as you described is utter garbage
Or maybe they are actually perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
No, they are not. 7.7 heavies are mostly bad in general due to insane compression of this BR range. Those aforementioned ones only escape this fate either due to having stabiliser or being a heavy in name only. (Leaving maus and E100 aside, these are good only in downtiers)
Their armor only offers protection against conventional rounds, which you hardly ever see anymore at this BR, at the same time being one of the last vehicles using them themselves.
They are heavily outgunned and outrunned by basically anything they can go up against and their armor can’t provide any protection what so ever
2 Likes
That argument is used by literally everyone at any given BR when it comes to heavy tanks, and it’s simply not true.
Just because some people use it because of their skill issue doesn’t invalidate it in situation where it’s actually true.
Let’s take an IS-4M as an example, it has a typical russian 122mm at 7.7. You have the exact same gun as 6.7 IS-2 1944. And even at 6.7 this gun is already considered average at best, since it’s advantages don’t really compensate for the incredibly long reload anymore. It has one of the worst guns at 7.7, it’s slow as hell and it’s armor can protect you against conventional rounds and some early APDS at best. As soon as you meet HEAT, let alone APFSDS you are smoked.
You can apply exactly the same arguments to an IS-6, but this one at least had it’s reload greatly improved and is way more mobile in exchange for the turret being penetrable even by things like long 8,8. I’d say it’s in a slightly better spot since it doesn’t rely on it’s armor as much, but it doesn’t make it that much more competitive.
None of them seem to be as bad as T32E1 though. This one i can’t justify being at 7.7 even with the usual argument going for 7.7 heavies about them bullying lower Brs as soon as they go down. This one has even worse gun than IS tanks while retaining all disadvantages of an IS-4M. What is this tank even doing at that BR? I have no idea.
And again, apart from T32E1 i don’t think these tanks must go down in BR, since if they don’t meet more modern rounds they will be just invincible, but they are in fact terrible right now and saying they are not won’t change it
Maybe because your general lack of understanding what’s important for a vehicle to perform well?
The T32E1 has several advantages over other 7.7 heavy tanks.
In case of the IS-4M it’s:
- Mobility 14.3hp/t vs. 12.5hp/t
- 14kph reverse vs. 11kph
- 24°/s turret traverse speed vs. 10°/s
- -10° gun depression vs. -3°
- Reload speed of 14.5s vs. 20.8s
- 5 crews vs. 4
- Higher velocity rounds (975m/s vs. 795-800m/s)
The IS-4M has overall more armor and an APHE with more penetration that overpressures and a coaxial 12.7mm MG.
The 90mm of the T32 is going to penetrate 99% of tanks from the side and is going to be the position to do so much more commonly thant he IS-4M.
While the argument can be made that the T32E1 has the worst firepower out of all 7.7s, it’s also the most flexible heavy tank that plays like a heavily armored medium tank.
2 Likes
The 122mm available as early as 5.3 by the KV-122. The types of enemies the 7.7s face in a slight uptier almost completely outclassing them in firepower department, only at .3 above they can face the Israel magach that carry dm23 equivalent, then .7 we have the fully stabilized ZTZ59D1 and Olifant also carry dm23 equivalent ammunition, the most armoured heavy tanks at 7.7 like the E-100, Maus and IS-4M entire hitbox is a weak spot to these ammunitions, even the T-10M which is a direct upgrade to T-10A also struggle against other 8.3s
None of these tanks have what it takes to perform well. You are free to take any 7.7 MBT and you will do much better than in any of those tanks outside of a full downtier.
T32E1 does have some advantages over IS-4M but in the grand scheme of things almost all are irrelevant. And it’s not like having a few advantages over one of the worst tanks of your BR makes a tank good.
Only ones that can actually help you out are gun depression and turret traverse speed. Maybe in some specific scenarios reverse speed.
I have no idea why would you use Ace crew values for these tanks since barely anyone will ever use this kind of crew on them, but anyway, with this kind of reload although difference between them is still noticeable, it won’t allow you to change your playstyle nearly at all. You only went from the single worst reload you can imagine at this BR to stupidly long reload. Everything besides IS tanks will still outreload you, and you still need to play close to cover since you can be easly caught during your reload. Abandoning the 122mm nuke shell and better penetration power for that is not worth it.
Velocity is largely irrelevant as long as you can aim, it’s not like you will snipe with it. 175 m/s is not a large difference.
American heavy tanks don’t have a lot of space inside. Although most shells you will get penned by will be HEAT or APDS doing way less damage than APHE, 1 extra crew member still won’t help you much. The moment you get penned once your tank is basically crippled anyway even if you survive.
2 hp/t difference isn’t very important either. It won’t affect your playstyle nearly at all and situations where it might save your life are scarce.
I know 122mm is there on KV-122 or ISU-122 at 5.3, but i didn’t want to bring them up because they lack BR-471D shell which is the main shell you use at IS-4M.
An easy but far reaching fix the community would most likely not like since muh full downtier sealclubbing. Drop the up and downtier max from 1.0 to 0.7. 6.7 won’t face a Maus and the jumbo won’t have to face 7.3 Is-3s
Yeah this is a reasonable idea, but it will end up being confusing because of weird BR numering we have in the game. At different BRs difference of 1 BR bracket may be either 0.3 or 0.4.
If your idea ever gets implemented we would need BR numering to be changed to something like 1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.5 etc.
And I have no idea why you would think I wouldn’t use ace crew values to compare tanks.
It makes like no difference to compare aced or non aced tanks with each other.
Are people now supposed to judge based on their feeling whether they should compare vehicles by aced or non aced crews?
Yeah it doesn’t matter if you use ace or non-aced crews for comparison.
All that matters is that both tanks are given the same properties, that is, being stock or spaded, crew level and training. Otherwise the comparison is just unfair because you’re just giving one of the tanks the advantage. Comparisons with aced crew are simply easier to make since that information is available on the wiki and such.
I once had an argument on Reddit where I made an objectively correct statement about the reload rate of two vehicles (I even specified the percentage difference, which does not change between two tanks if their crew training is identical), and the person said I was lying because his two tanks didn’t have this percentage difference, even though I pointed out his two tanks were not of the same level.
4 Likes
No but you can leave them where they are.
Bruh, 3.3 Britain is goated. Crommy V is by far my favorite rank 3.0-4.0 tank in Warthunder, and Britain has great SPAA and CAS options aswell.
1 Like