from where you see that ?, the t32 has 127mm armor on the front with 2 spots on the lower frontal plate having only 97mm and the gunner port weakspot, the is3 has 110 on all of it and angled, about the t32E1 as i said before i think it should stay on 7.7 since it loses the weakspots taht 6.7 vehicles can abuse.
btw there is no weakspot on the is3 hull armor that you can abuse .
Gunner port and idler wheels are the only weak spots of T32.
Everything else easily resists the best heavy tank rounds.
and the is3 can resist pretty much everything ?
i dont get your point there, the tanks from 6.7 that can pen the t32 don’t even dream of being able to kill an is3 from the front…
The tanks from 6.7 that can pen T32 are firing HEATFS which definitely pen IS-3.
nop, tiger 2s can pen the t32 but can’t the is3, and i think there are little to no vehicles that shoot heatfs on 6.7-7.0 the only ones that i remember now are the
german m41 and the t92, they have heatfs, but most of the other tanks doesn’t and even with heatfs against the is3 it might not even be reliable.
T44 is absolutely not “meta”. It has significantly poorer post penetration damage (which is a really bad thing given that these cannons have a longer reload than most others, you want to one shot) and it loses it’s edge in penetration as the angle and distance increases.
At point blank, BR-471B will have better penetration past ~47°, and BR-471D has better penetration past ~56°. At 500 meters, those figures will drop to 45° and 50° respectively.
Edited with penetration graphs and a tiny ammendment.
0 meters, same as the old one but now with T44 APCR (orange).
Same thing but for 500 meters.
Now 1000 meters.
Ammendment: on the previous graph for 1000 meter penetration, I used the penetration value stated on the wiki page of the IS-3 for BR-471B. However, this round has received a drag buff, and hasn’t been updated on the wiki. The same thing applies to 90 mm T41/M82, except I already knew of this change and was already using the in-game penetration values of this round rather than the wiki stated ones. As such, the actual in-game flat penetration of BR-471B at 1000 meters is 178 mm, not 161 mm, as seen in this newer graph, meaning that BR-471B has much more of an advantage than before.
You might notice that APCR does not entirely match the actual 60° penetration values that are on the stat card. This is due to a bug with the stat card where the projectile’s diameter is used to calculate the caliber to armor thickness ratio, rather than the actual core diameter which is what is actually used to determine penetration. These values here use core diameter, and are therefore accurate to the actual performance of T44.
This is the tiger 2 shooting the is3 with the normal aphe shell
with APCR
APHE against the t32
and APCR
the t32 has easy to pen weakspots and not only that if you shoot with tiger2 aphe on these weakspots your gonna at least kill 3 crew
I dont have any videos currently. My KD is
I wouldnt say it is slow, it is certainly at least a bit better than t34 imo, you just need to spade the thing.
Armor is pretty tricky - never has value and always has. You should never rely on it, but it saves your ass constantly, in downtiers is pretty much impenetrable, in uptiers it will still bounce some shells, especially the mantlet.
Play slow, play careful, use gun depression and mobility to peak good occasions and those shells will do all the work. you can also play this thing more aggresively, but never try to push frontally, use your turret rotation to get advantage.
Give yourself time to learn and dont listen to idiots on forum whining about every vehicle they refuse to l2p :)
I started playing the t32 again this morning, it glanced off plenty of shells. My First shot attempt at probably 15 m away, I hit a t-44(100) on the left under side of the turret cheek(he was moving)……. The shell shattered and he didn’t even notice I just shot him as he was looking to my left.
As I was waiting for reload, it did pretty well deflecting or shattering incoming shells from 3 directions. Then a tiger 2 pulled up to my right and shot me from my right- it was an angled shot through my right track and I instantly blew up.
It wasn’t to bad. Usually at some point, I would want to be in the t29 so I still likde it better. But the t32 is okay and fun at 7.3 BR but would be perfect at 7.0.
It would be the perfect heavy armor(MBT- not tank destroyer) we are missing at 7.0. It would force those not aware of how to aim because they’ve never really had too, into needing to aim before the shot is fired.(some Russian and German players are used to mindlessly pointing and pulling trigger. It would be a good combatant to that complacency. lol (I’m just talking crap)
I was also obliterated by some maus a couple times, and a few heat shells. But I liked it. The gun reminded me of why I never grinded it out. So it’s one of the few tanks left in USA I need to research upgrades for lol
So that was the only problem I had with it.
Heat vs is3 for me only works directly lined up for a direct shot to the front hull, I believe that was the first time heat worked on it.
Usually the IS3’ doesn’t even acknowledge being shot by heat. And they carry on like nothing happened to kill the entire team and only slowing down to fix a busted barrel, which IS3’s end up doing the majority of the match sometimes it seems lol
They can’t pen your UFP either and must also look for weak spots, so it’s alright.
Frontally, the Tiger II pens the IS-3 on the right turret cheek, and of course can get the shot trap. Depending on the angle you can sometimes punch through the pike nose.
Yes they can reliably pen the UFP of the t29 and t34.
Those are called lucky gaijin moment shots.
Or gaijin mercy shots
Or Blessed warthunder shot
Idk
I’ve done it a few times, 98% of the time it does no damage whatsoever though lol “shot trap”
from what i tested most of the times you shoot on the is3 gun mantlet your shell will be stoped by the mg and dont do anything to the crew and when you get the angle to shoot the pike nose you might just save the shoot and go around it if possible since its not reliable at all , its like playing russian roulette when your dealing with is3’s on full uptiers
The turret front of the IS-3 is 250 mm CHA. That makes it 235 mm in RHAe, so it will only penetrate reliably (over 50% chance to go through) if you hit at extremely close range and has to hit in a way that the angle of incidence is roughly under 7°. Seems too unreliable and too strict to really actually work.
This is the best explanation of dealing with Russian turrets. Well Russian tanks in general but especially the IS series turrets. I’ve shot an IS3 in the back and side of the turret with the t34 and neither shot did any damage, they basically just shattered or deflected. But I was not shooting from any angle that would cause this to happen. Actually about 10’ away directly behind the IS3.
No, they’re not.
Volumetric, ping, and turret desync make them harder to achieve, but it’s similar to how sometimes you’ll miss the flat turret plate of the KV1 because of turret desync etc. The IS-3 is hardly unique in that regard.
As far as I’m aware, it’s the biggest shot trap of any tech tree tank in the game. Only the E-100, obviously not in the tech tree, has it worse.
I play German 6.7 a lot, so I face IS-3s frequently… Admittedly less so now that they’ve gone up in BR. They’re to be mindful of, but I really wouldn’t call them unstoppable by any means.
I never really tried the mantlet. The right turret cheek that I mention is the small protrusion where the commander sits.
While I don’t know the exact value, the spot I’m referring to - the “bulge” that is only on the right side of the turret - is certainly weaker than that, and it has worked for me at distance too.
The obstacle I would cite imho is the fact that it’s a very small target unless you’re up close and personal, and volumetric can really work against you.
Indeed. I’m surprised to see that’s the value, something wonky must be happening there because I’ve OHK’d through that spot with the long 88 several times. The next time it happens I’ll have to record a video of it.
