Jump to content


Armor is Now Worthless


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

MalikCarr #41 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 21:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View Postmadtanker, on Apr 25 2012 - 17:57, said:

Oh so the is4 shouldn't have a frontal weak spot that every other tank shares? It need's a gun nerf and hp nerf of about 150-200, currently it can beat any t10 on test server. Which makes an un-competitive environment. I do feel that weak spot should be buffed a little bit.

Oh no, a tank was designed without a glaring weakness right in the middle of its face so anyone can engage it frontally! This must be fixed at once or WoT is doomed.

Are you for real?

Tanks are not designed with convenient "shoot here" places to make combat an exercise in fairness.

IS-4's driver's hatch is a complete work of fiction because people like you wouldn't be able to realize the numerous other weaknesses it already has, so they had to put a small but easily penetrable HOLE IN THE FRONT OF THE TANK.

Did you know that you can bounce shells into the 30mm roof armor of the hull by aiming near the undercut edges of the turret? It's called a shot trap, and it's the reason why Soviet tanks like IS-7, IS-8, and T-54 have rounded turrets that become flush with the hull rather than curving inward. Did you also know that even though they're buffing the "shoulder" armor to 160mm (it was never this thick) that most IS-4 drivers overcompensate their angle and present you an almost perpendicular shot? High-penetration guns will still go through 160mm of sloped armor if it's facing *right at you*.

But oh no, we have a tank that runs on Wargaming.net pixiedust with how completely false everything about it is (far better than it should be), but we absolutely CANNOT fix the frontal armor because then nobody would ever be able to kill it ever.

Get out of my game. http://forum.worldof...Smile-angry.gif

madtanker #42 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 22:12

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10183 battles
  • 79
  • [R3ACT] R3ACT
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 21:52, said:

Oh no, a tank was designed without a glaring weakness right in the middle of its face so anyone can engage it frontally! This must be fixed at once or WoT is doomed.

Are you for real?

Tanks are not designed with convenient "shoot here" places to make combat an exercise in fairness.

IS-4's driver's hatch is a complete work of fiction because people like you wouldn't be able to realize the numerous other weaknesses it already has, so they had to put a small but easily penetrable HOLE IN THE FRONT OF THE TANK.

Did you know that you can bounce shells into the 30mm roof armor of the hull by aiming near the undercut edges of the turret? It's called a shot trap, and it's the reason why Soviet tanks like IS-7, IS-8, and T-54 have rounded turrets that become flush with the hull rather than curving inward. Did you also know that even though they're buffing the "shoulder" armor to 160mm (it was never this thick) that most IS-4 drivers overcompensate their angle and present you an almost perpendicular shot? High-penetration guns will still go through 160mm of sloped armor if it's facing *right at you*.

But oh no, we have a tank that runs on Wargaming.net pixiedust with how completely false everything about it is (far better than it should be), but we absolutely CANNOT fix the frontal armor because then nobody would ever be able to kill it ever.

Get out of my game. http://forum.worldof...Smile-angry.gif

So this is why the e100 didn't get lower plate the same thickness of the upper when it was supposed to? The fact is wargaming stated themselves each tank will have a frontal weakness. I agree with buffing the armor. And yes wargaming designed tanks with convenient "shoot here" places to make combat an exercise in fairness T110 cupola, Maus mudflaps and lower front plate, Thin e100 lower plate, the whole 50b. Wargaming intentionally makes weakspots. Damn troll

MalikCarr #43 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 22:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View Postmadtanker, on Apr 25 2012 - 22:12, said:

So this is why the e100 didn't get lower plate the same thickness of the upper when it was supposed to? The fact is wargaming stated themselves each tank will have a frontal weakness. I agree with buffing the armor. And yes wargaming designed tanks with convenient "shoot here" places to make combat an exercise in fairness T110 cupola, Maus mudflaps and lower front plate, Thin e100 lower plate, the whole 50b. Wargaming intentionally makes weakspots. Damn troll

Oh, so I'm the troll now. That's cute. I hope you enjoy this box you've opened.

http://www.fprado.co...heme_Tiger2.png


This is the armor scheme of Tiger II.

PLEASE NOTE: THE LOWER PLATE IS THINNER THAN THE UPPER PLATE.


It's a much smaller target than the upper one and as a result armor was sacrificed there to save weight. In a long range battle, which tanks like the Tiger II were designed to excel at, it's much more likely that the upper plate will catch an incoming shot than the lower one, especially when it comes to inaccurate Russian guns. The lower plate could have been made thicker, but this would further hinder the tank's already poor mobility for a questionable gain in armor that likely won't be hit. If the Russian has gotten close enough to exploit your weak points, use terrain to your advantage and get behind a little rock or divot in the ground so only the upper hull is exposed.

http://cy14.ru/wp-co...011/03/100l.jpg


Here is the armor scheme for E-100. The lower plate is now the same thickness as the upper plate, but at much less of a slope. Therefore, it is effectively "thinner" than the upper plate as far as line-of-sight penetration is concerned - especially when E-100 is cresting a slope and rendering its lower plate more or less perpendicular to a tank below it.

Wargaming did not invent this armor arrangement. The original designers did, because it was assumed to be an acceptable trade-off to reduce overall mass and bulk. Whether or not something translated well from the drafting table to the battlefield has been a long discussion about the military design, procurement, and employment process.

Wargaming DID invent the driver's hatch on the IS-4.

It does not exist.

It is not real.

It is entirely the work of someone in a modelling program at WG.net's design studio.

http://media.desura....3/2074/IS-4.jpg


This IS-4 has a reinforced wedge installed over the driver's compartment. Please note - THERE IS NO VISION SLIT.

http://img-fotki.yan...5ec_ef639c66_XL


This IS-4 has nothing there at all - just a thicker plate welded to the front hull. Please note - THERE IS NO VISION SLIT.

NO MASS-PRODUCED IS-4 EVER HAD A PHYSICAL VISION SLIT IN THE BOW.


YOU are the troll, mister. I don't care if you're a beta tester or not, that does not excuse your accusations or outright fabrication of facts. Go away.

ColonelColt #44 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1947 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
Most tanks have weakspots but WG has a habit of fabricating all kinds of things for no apparent reason. You have to wonder how often it wasn't even intended, that it's an error on their part.

madtanker #45 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:25

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10183 battles
  • 79
  • [R3ACT] R3ACT
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010
*edit to quote

madtanker #46 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:30

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10183 battles
  • 79
  • [R3ACT] R3ACT
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 22:41, said:

Oh, so I'm the troll now. That's cute. I hope you enjoy this box you've opened.




This is the armor scheme of Tiger II.

PLEASE NOTE: THE LOWER PLATE IS THINNER THAN THE UPPER PLATE.


It's a much smaller target than the upper one and as a result armor was sacrificed there to save weight. In a long range battle, which tanks like the Tiger II were designed to excel at, it's much more likely that the upper plate will catch an incoming shot than the lower one, especially when it comes to inaccurate Russian guns. The lower plate could have been made thicker, but this would further hinder the tank's already poor mobility for a questionable gain in armor that likely won't be hit. If the Russian has gotten close enough to exploit your weak points, use terrain to your advantage and get behind a little rock or divot in the ground so only the upper hull is exposed.




Here is the armor scheme for E-100. The lower plate is now the same thickness as the upper plate, but at much less of a slope. Therefore, it is effectively "thinner" than the upper plate as far as line-of-sight penetration is concerned - especially when E-100 is cresting a slope and rendering its lower plate more or less perpendicular to a tank below it.

Wargaming did not invent this armor arrangement. The original designers did, because it was assumed to be an acceptable trade-off to reduce overall mass and bulk. Whether or not something translated well from the drafting table to the battlefield has been a long discussion about the military design, procurement, and employment process.

Wargaming DID invent the driver's hatch on the IS-4.

It does not exist.

It is not real.

It is entirely the work of someone in a modelling program at WG.net's design studio.




This IS-4 has a reinforced wedge installed over the driver's compartment. Please note - THERE IS NO VISION SLIT.


This IS-4 has nothing there at all - just a thicker plate welded to the front hull. Please note - THERE IS NO VISION SLIT.

NO MASS-PRODUCED IS-4 EVER HAD A PHYSICAL VISION SLIT IN THE BOW.


YOU are the troll, mister. I don't care if you're a beta tester or not, that does not excuse your accusations or outright fabrication of facts. Go away.

I know WG invented the hatch, what I was saying you took out of context. 130mm lower hull of e100, intended weak spot, is-4 driver hatch intended weak spot. I was proving the same point as you, you just didn't get it..... Nothing in your reply makes a statement or argument against what I said. What did I fabricate? What accusation did I make? Read before you write. Everything I posted was facts. In the future when trying to speak against something some says, make sure you say something that actually shows conflict in what they said, not agree's with it...

ireconi #47 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9390 battles
  • 862
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
You didn't actually think Russians wouldn't have the last laugh did ya?

MalikCarr #48 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View Postmadtanker, on Apr 25 2012 - 23:30, said:

I know WG invented the hatch, what I was saying you took out of context. 130mm lower hull of e100, intended weak spot, is-4 driver hatch intended weak spot. I was proving the same point as you, you just didn't get it..... Nothing in your reply makes a statement or argument against what I said. What did I fabricate? What accusation did I make? Read before you write. Everything I posted was facts. In the future when trying to speak against something some says, make sure you say something that actually shows conflict in what they said, not agree's with it...

Er, since when has E-100 had 130mm of lower hull armor?

There are two known designs of E-100 that were actually looked at - one with 200mm frontal armor on upper and lower plates and one with 150mm frontal armor on upper and lower plates. The one in game lists 200mm frontal armor so it stands to reason WG went with the "heavier" E-100 with Krupp turret (the 75mm KwK 44 is on top of the main gun and it has the 'police bar' mount for the stereoscopic rangefinders and gun sights).

E-100 with Maus turret and 150mm frontal armor:

http://strangevehicl...uspic/pz125.jpg
Compare that to E-100 with 200mm frontal armor and Krupp turret:

http://modelarmour.c...E100/Header.jpg

Note that the heavier E-100 has five "jigsaw" welds to support the heavier armor compared to the three welds on the lighter E-100 with 150mm frontal plate.

The lighter E-100 with 150mm frontal armor was designed to use Maus turrets which IMO would be a disaster since, unlike Maus, E-100 doesn't have a large shell deflector on the hull roof. A shell hits the lower slope of Maus turret and it bounces down through the roof of the hull. Oops.

madtanker #49 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:49

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10183 battles
  • 79
  • [R3ACT] R3ACT
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 23:43, said:

Er, since when has E-100 had 130mm of lower hull armor?

There are two known designs of E-100 that were actually looked at - one with 200mm frontal armor on upper and lower plates and one with 150mm frontal armor on upper and lower plates. The one in game lists 200mm frontal armor so it stands to reason WG went with the "heavier" E-100 with Krupp turret (the 75mm KwK 44 is on top of the main gun and it has the 'police bar' mount for the stereoscopic rangefinders and gun sights).

The lighter E-100 with 150mm frontal armor was designed to use Maus turrets which IMO would be a disaster since, unlike Maus, E-100 doesn't have a large shell deflector on the hull roof. A shell hits the lower slope of Maus turret and it bounces down through the roof of the hull. Oops.

In game the e100 has 130mm maybe 150mm lower hull I dont have access to the armor data right now but, 88 l70 can pen it reliably and so can the 177pen russian guns.

MalikCarr #50 Posted Apr 25 2012 - 23:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
That can't be right - it would mean E-100's lower slope is actually thinner than E-75's.

If WG chose to use the lower plate from the lighter E-100 design while giving it the upper plate and turret from the heavier E-100 then that would be a minor nerf, but you also got the better turret out of it.

If the lower slope is in fact 130mm as you say then that's patent bullshit, much like IS-4's fictional vision slit.

madtanker #51 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 01:54

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10183 battles
  • 79
  • [R3ACT] R3ACT
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 23:51, said:

That can't be right - it would mean E-100's lower slope is actually thinner than E-75's.

If WG chose to use the lower plate from the lighter E-100 design while giving it the upper plate and turret from the heavier E-100 then that would be a minor nerf, but you also got the better turret out of it.

If the lower slope is in fact 130mm as you say then that's patent bullshit, much like IS-4's fictional vision slit.

Yep nail on the head. I believe its 150 at 50 which equals around 190~ but it gets penned like its a KT lower hull.

MalikCarr #52 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 02:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
The 150mm lower slope was one of the E-100 proposals, but that one also had a 150mm upper slope too. So WG gave you the better upper slope but the inferior lower one - it's sort of a bashing together of two competing designs for a "lighter" and "heavier" version of the same tank.

My question is this - would you rather have the Maus turret as well? If they went strictly with the historical design you could have a 200mm lower slope, but then you're also going to have shells ricocheting off your turret and into your hull roof.

Killertomato #53 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 02:36

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4500 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
Ain't this exactly what happened in real life? AP shells got insane penetration after the war and rendered the heavies' RHA completely useless, which is why the Leopard I MBT has basically nothing.

I think WG is going to have to ditch reality on this, or render half the tier 10s entirely useless.

johncage #54 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 04:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4015 battles
  • 838
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
rendering tier 10s useless would be more profitable for them, so i think i know their decision on this.

HerrDuck #55 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 05:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11222 battles
  • 299
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 23:51, said:

That can't be right - it would mean E-100's lower slope is actually thinner than E-75's.

It is, people have complained about this for ages.  The E75 is much, much tougher to the front than the E100 is.

Wezo #56 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 07:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19485 battles
  • 254
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
Just another point i'd like to add. Look at the vehicles with the highest win ratios. Most of the are French, ie. Bat Chat, Lorraine, AMX series. This should rid you of any doubt that armor is rendered useless with these high speed, high pen tanks.

MalikCarr #57 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 07:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5099 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostHerrDuck, on Apr 26 2012 - 05:00, said:

It is, people have complained about this for ages.  The E75 is much, much tougher to the front than the E100 is.

Well fantastic. So which one was it, 150mm or 130mm? The former is a silly choice but that was one of the design proposals. The latter is Russian, or rather, anti-German bias.

SilverforceX #58 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 08:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 10846 battles
  • 2,669
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 25 2012 - 23:51, said:

That can't be right - it would mean E-100's lower slope is actually thinner than E-75's.

If WG chose to use the lower plate from the lighter E-100 design while giving it the upper plate and turret from the heavier E-100 then that would be a minor nerf, but you also got the better turret out of it.

If the lower slope is in fact 130mm as you say then that's patent bullshit, much like IS-4's fictional vision slit.

That's actually true. The E-100 lower glacis is weaker than E75. It's a giant target and there's the frontal transmission sitting right behind it. Imagine if your IS4 got shot at the weak driver port and your engine exploded burning you for 1,000 dmg. That's the E-100, except its weakspots is bigger. MUCH BIGGER.

Devs nerfed the E-100 during testing stages, it HAD 200mm lower plate. They nerfed it to 130-150mm (prolly closer to 130mm from testing).

Now its a giant sitting duck with a huge weakspot frontal AND the entire turret is a weakspot to guns with >260 penetration... which everyone except Germans have. It's got 2,400HP same as the IS-4. It's also got a horrible gun without using gold shells.

So before people complaint about the IS-4 or whatever else, the E-100 is the worse by far.

Superaman #59 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 08:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9540 battles
  • 972
  • [GMONK] GMONK
  • Member since:
    11-27-2011
Perhaps they are increasing penetration due to the fact that they may be adding high angled spaced armor as purchasable equipment.  I believe one of the last 2 YAWR's mentioned that.

Luffwaffle #60 Posted Apr 26 2012 - 08:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6893 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostMalikCarr, on Apr 26 2012 - 07:59, said:

Well fantastic. So which one was it, 150mm or 130mm? The former is a silly choice but that was one of the design proposals. The latter is Russian, or rather, anti-German bias.
Whether its 130 or 150 doesn't matter. All I know is my Tiger 1 can pen an E100's lower hull a good 75% of the time, while I'm lucky to pen an E-75's lower hull 10% of the time. Whether it's a thinner plate, less of a slope, lower quality metal, or magic WARGAMING pixie dust is besides the point.

German tanks main selling point is heavy armor. Their tier 10's are slow and their guns are not that great. Now the last 3 tier 10s released into this game all have one thing in common, and that is over the top penetration. Penetration so high, it makes the main strength of German tanks useless.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users