Jump to content


KV-4 Hit boxes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

TheDreadnought #1 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 17530 battles
  • 2,296
  • [07] 07
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011
So is the second turret a giant weak spot on the KV-4?

What's your experience been with bouncing shots?  Do you get many or is the armor on the KV-4 pretty good?

mrasianman2 #2 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 16:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2377 battles
  • 1,608
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I try to aim for it, but everytime I hit it, it magically bounces. Not to mention it's smaller than the T110 tumor and much harder to hit. A good KV-4 player wiggles around a little, although it doesn't do much to help.

das_nooblet #3 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 19:27

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 16077 battles
  • 735
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010
In the couple of matches I've had time to play so far, I haven't had too much trouble penetrating it with the KV-3. In all fairness though, that was at moderately close range.

Wesrin #4 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 20:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5111 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012
The vulnerability of the secondary turret on top of the KV-4 is just as glaringly broken as the R2D2 is with the KV-5. Any gun with reasonable penetration values (100+) easily pierces it, and even at longer ranges it is not a difficult target to hit.

I was easily able to penetrate this with my KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, often knocking 12-20% of the KV-4's total HP per shot.

This either needs to be removed from the model, or have the hitbox fixed akin to the T29's "ears" on its end-tier turret.

While they're at it, fixing the KV-5's R2D2 would be nice too. That would actually bring the tank in-line with it's tier given it uses the 107 ZiS6 T7 gun.

DeutschPantherV #5 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 20:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12615 battles
  • 1,726
  • [UN] UN
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
just make a big fuss about it, spread it around a bit, and the devs will fix it like they did with the T110, by giving it way more armor. A tank like this shouldn't have a huge weakspot, when it's armor is it's main attraction.

rogue_gamecube #6 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 21:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 30901 battles
  • 257
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2010
The KV-4 has next-to-no weak spots. That second turret is squat, so not that easy to hit, and some kind of decent armor from the looks of the turrets mantlet.

Honestly, this thing is hilariously good. Just wait until you can put a decent crew on it with the increased ram skill. With everything on it, it weighs in at 104.5 tonnes. Climb a hill, do your thing, then charge down it. It's top speed is 50kmh.

104.5 tonnes descending at 50kmh. I have already done 600dmg to a Ferd during the test server doing exactly that. It is hilarious.

Wesrin #7 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 21:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5111 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View Postrogue_gamecube, on Apr 21 2012 - 21:25, said:

The KV-4 has next-to-no weak spots. That second turret is squat, so not that easy to hit...

Having a portion of the tank that will yield a 100% penetration and full-damage hit does not fall under "next to no weak spots."

The turret is not as squat as you want to believe. Trust me, it is a pretty significant target, especially if the tank is hulled down.

It needs to be addressed. Period.

rogue_gamecube #8 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 21:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 30901 battles
  • 257
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2010
I'm sorry if you think that tanks shouldn't have weak spots on them, but that's how this game works. It's a hard one to aim for at that, nothing like the KV-5s r2d2 or the T110s tumor. Given the rest of the front turret/hull is 180mm of bounce, I see no problem with this weak point. It's also next-to-impossible to hit up close, so maybe you should try getting up in someone's face next time? It has a 1200hp engine, so it can move around pretty quick for a 100+ tonne tank.

Wesrin #9 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 22:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5111 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View Postrogue_gamecube, on Apr 21 2012 - 21:51, said:

I'm sorry if you think that tanks shouldn't have weak spots on them...

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between a weak spot and a defunct damage model. I firmly believe tanks should have weak spots. The KV-4 has them: The rear armor is particularly soft  and flat(90mm) for its tier and, like any heavy tank, must guard it through positioning or allied support. Despite its 1200 HP engine, and good speed for a heavy, its side armor is also an issue when faced with T7+ tanks with quality guns. These weak spots are present, but they do not cripple the tank's function. In fact, they define it.

To me, a weak spot should be something the driver takes into consideration in tactics and can defend against.

The problem with the commander's MG turret (and the KV-5 R2D2, and the T110 "tumor" [which was fixed, BTW, just like the T29 ears]) is not a weak spot, but an issue with the damage model where any shell that hits that spot will automatically penetrate and deal FULL HP damage. This is not "apart of the game" as you claim it is. This is bug, and it needs to be fixed. Unlike the KV-5 R2D2 which can be defended somewhat by hulling down (situational given the terrain), there is no reasonable way to defend that spot while engaging in the activities this tank was designed for -- brawling.

I am not touting a banner saying the KV-4 is an underdog. No. In fact, with 180mm front and turret armor, I believe it is going to be one of the best, if not the best, T8 heavies in the game. But I also feel considering its weapon choices, especially compared to other tanks of its tier, and its weaknesses minus the damage model issue with the MG turret, that its relatively balanced for its cost.

Yes, every tank should have weak points that, when struck, have effects that are relative to the location.

NO tank should have glaring damage model flaws like the KV-4, KV-5, and previously fixed T110 and T29 did.

rogue_gamecube #10 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 22:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 30901 battles
  • 257
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2010
Yeah, I've had lower tier tanks bounce their shots off that secondary turret. It's not a 'flaw', it's a legitimate piece of the tank with an armor value. Everyone is lobbing gold rounds in this test server, so the fact it's bounced anything is a point in it's favor. I don't really know what you're going on about.

Wesrin #11 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 22:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5111 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View Postrogue_gamecube, on Apr 21 2012 - 22:11, said:

I don't really know what you're going on about.

Alright, I'll rephrase to clarify the issue:

Generally shooting the extremities of a tank (commander's hatch, fuel tanks, etc) yields a subsystem disable/crew kill and modest amount of damage depending on what/where you are shooting. Yes, that MG turret can bounce shots because it is assigned a base armor value (whatever that may be, but it certainly isn't 180mm), but my issue is that shots that strike it which fully penetrate and kill the commander (which is completely expected and reasonable) also deal full HP damage to the tank which I don't feel is especially balanced.

I understand its a game, and I understand that WoT is far from historically accurate, being able to consistently hit this one spot, even with low tier guns, and yield predictable HP damage is like playing a first person shooter where you hit the guy in the hand and it 'kills' him outright, simply because it is based on 'hitpoints' rather than locational-based effects. Thats my issue.

But I digress. I don't have access to the damage model or core numbers, and this is all based off my experience (which could be the exception). The tank deserves more field testing to really see if its as big of an issue as I have seen, and as I have heard others proclaim.

TigerHawk #12 Posted Apr 21 2012 - 23:31

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7184 battles
  • 916
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
I dunno, I don't feel that the mini-turret is TOO weak, but it is really hard to tell with all the gold rounds flying around. I've tried to find someone who speaks english to get into a training room with me to try some 160-200 pen guns on it (I'm fine with, say, the long 88 getting through it but not the short 88 with it's measely 130 something average pen) but no luck. Either they aren't paying attention or don't care to help me test it out.

Other than that though I'm really liking the Kv-4. It has really fun armor when I'm not being pelted with gold. I actually managed to get into a tier 8 match with it(I know, right? holy crap!) and it was full of badassery. I went head to head with this Tiger II at about 150m and he only penned me once underneath the gun mantlet and I annihilated him. The new 107 is a pretty sweet gun.

Goldmarble #13 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 00:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17505 battles
  • 583
  • [XBBX] XBBX
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
Tigerhawk, hit me up in game and I'll help test it out.

hoom #14 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 00:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19189 battles
  • 5,445
  • [JRTB] JRTB
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
Very keen to know how this works out  :Smile_great:

I think it will need to be penetrable by fairly low pen guns, otherwise it'll be all but invulnerable to T7 & lower.

Could be the most difficult foe for KV5.

Goldmarble #15 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 01:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17505 battles
  • 583
  • [XBBX] XBBX
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
KV-5 versus KV-4 one on one? Absolutely no contest. KV-4 will dominate the KV-5. With the long 107, it can punch through the KV-5s turret front with random bounces.

Wesrin #16 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 01:41

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5111 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View Posthoom, on Apr 22 2012 - 00:58, said:

I think it will need to be penetrable by fairly low pen guns, otherwise it'll be all but invulnerable to T7 & lower.

With this ideology, then shouldn't all heavies be vulnerable in the same way to low pen guns? Tanks who end up in the lower bracket of a T8-T10 match are not there for line fighting, but fire support or scouting.

There are plenty of T5, T6, and T7 tanks that can damage and kill the KV-4 with the right tactics. Will they do well head-to-head? Not really, no. Will they be able to gang up and kill the KV-4? Yes. The front armor is 180mm at it's thickest but it has plenty of places to penetrate (driver's port is never a bad place to shoot and can easily travel through the body of the tank). And remember that the side and rear armor plating is relatively flat meaning a 90 degree shot to the armor's face is not only ideal, but easy to achieve.

Additionally, the rear armor is 90MM and is exceptionally vulnerable to many T5 tank guns (T1 HT, KV-1, Pz4, Pz3/4). I know this because myself and two KV-1's took on a KV-4 and killed him, and our favorite tactic was holding his attention with one tank while the other two swung around and nailed him from behind.

The KV-4 should be a bruiser that is feared by the weaker tanks, as should all T8 heavies, but they should not be invincible. Making the commander's MG turret an exploitable weak point is not a solution.

hoom #17 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 02:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19189 battles
  • 5,445
  • [JRTB] JRTB
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
Well I've killed plenty of T8s with lower tiers & yes they all have major vulnerabilities to lower tiers.

Lowe, Ferdie & KT have 80mm sides which are easily penetrated by lower tiers & the 107mm Zis 6 on KV5.
IS3 is 90mm below the spaced armor again easily penetrated.
KV5 has the R2D2.
ISU152 is easily penetrated anywhere as long as you don't hit the mantlet or stick around infront of the maw of the BL10.
T32 & T34 both have pretty soft hulls. T32 is a bit hard to penetrate with 107mm frontally & I've been bouncing infuriatingly often on the T34 hull front too  :blink:
T28 super soft hull sides.

With 130mm hull sides (thicker than E75 hull sides) & no frontal R2D2 KV4 is going to be considerably tougher than those.

A good 90 degree angle on those sides should penetrate but with a bit of angle it'll bounce pretty nicely like the E75.

Even the rear at 90mm is the thickest hull rear at T8, equal to the KV5.

Ghettobuster #18 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 06:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3500 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011
KV4 needs big fix on accuracy or something since its the same caliber tank as the new KV2, weak armor and weak gun make for a dead tank fast. Also tfried using gold ammo and bounce 4 out of 5 shells when opposing other tanks of same tier or higher

Waphlez #19 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 07:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7984 battles
  • 262
  • [WANTD] WANTD
  • Member since:
    10-23-2010
This isn't exhaustively tested (we only did about 5 rounds of shooting), but a friend and I tested the armor with a 100mm (175 pen), 75mm L/100 (198 pen), and BL-9 (225 pen) and the overall performance of the front armor roughly follows this picture. (note colors used are generalizations, and don't follow a specific spectrum of thickness)

Posted Image

The turret is good except for the top turret, though if shooting directly from front, can hit angled sides and will probably bounce. It also has a somewhat large flat piece below the gun mantlet that while thick, has no slope at all if aiming at the attacker. This is somewhat compounded with the upper area of the front hull where the view ports and MG mount are located. While thick, it isn't sloped that well and the BL-9 had little problem penetrating. With 198 pen, this area was penetrable about half the time. The MG port was much easier to penetrate for all guns. The front sloped is, as you would guess, almost impossible to penetrate with most guns. The lower glacis is probably the biggest weakness of this tank. The 100 with 175 pen had some trouble penetrating, but had a decent chance of penetrating. The other two guns (198 and 225) had no problem at all penetrating it. I even recall penetrating the lower glacis (and front top turret) with only 167mm pen.

Overall, the front armor of this tank is very good compared to other tier 8s. It can also be angled very well, though this will expose the 130mm side armor on the hull which while good when angled, can be penetrated with high pen guns such as those found on tier 9 tanks. The sides and rear of the turret doesn't have much slope at all and are vulnerable to guns with at least ~200 pen. However, they are thick so low tier tanks will still have a lot of trouble penetrating it.

From what experience I've had in the test, I think this might overthrow the KT as the most well rounded tier 8 heavy tank. While a bit sluggish with poor traverse (hull and turret), and mediocre horsepower/ton ratio (RSG makes a big difference), it has a very high top speed which will make it very capable of moving around in certain maps. The 107mm is a good contender for the 10,5cm, due to the higher rate of fire, though the 10,5cm still win out on accuracy and aim time. The biggest advantage the KV-4 has is the much thicker side armor. While not as thick as the KV-5's side armor, it is still pretty good. The side armor on KT is a joke and probably the biggest vulnerability of it, but the KT does retain very good traverse rates to help mitigate this.

In terms of comparing it to KV-5, I don't think there can be a real comparison since KV-5 has lower MM and has a much faster firing gun. The KV-4 is much more of a standard tier 8 heavy due to the lower RoF. The KV-5 retains good armor (R2D2 aside, in the heat of battle the armor will bounce a lot of shots), has 140 more HP, and a much faster gun with higher damage output, and the 150mm side is a large improvement over the 130mm side when fighting tier 7 and tier 8 medium tanks (that 20mm will make a large difference when fighting tanks with 160-180mm pen guns). While they have a similar look and armor layout, the playstyle of these tanks are pretty different.

hoom #20 Posted Apr 22 2012 - 07:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19189 battles
  • 5,445
  • [JRTB] JRTB
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
Thank you very much for that :Smile_great:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users