Jump to content


M110 and M103 hull armor


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

Arzoo #21 Posted Oct 07 2011 - 01:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 06 2011 - 20:44, said:

Where did you see this?

Because if you talking about Wiki stats that was the stock turret, and one of the reasons it was replaced was the US love using Defilade attacks, and the New Turret was a little higher, and had alot more Deppresion

Ah, forgot they always give tanks in WoT a turret upgrade. So used to US tanks top upgrade being their historically weakest possible armament.

Minds_Eye #22 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 02:02

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15351 battles
  • 1,579
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 06 2011 - 08:13, said:

M103 Heavy Tank:

Upper Glacis = 127mm at 60 degrees from vertical

Effective protection versus AP = 206mm
Effective protection versus APCR/APDS = 190mm
Effective protection versus HE/HEAT = 254mm

Lower Glacis = 114mm at 50 degrees from vertical

Effective protection versus AP = 153mm
Effective protection versus APCR/APDS = 145mm
Effective protection versus HE/HEAT = 177mm

This is hull Armor guys, the Turret will be about same as T32/T34, So its a big step up IMO, also it had same deppression as T29, so that will be awesome as of now T34 Dep Sucks.

Also imagine its Gun being a huge Ez8 cannon hi ROF Pen and Accuracy making it king of the DPM war.

That sounds a lot like the T32's front armor, does anybody know how the sizes of the front armor surfaces are in comparison? I know one reason the T32's armor is good is because it is small.

Landsraad #23 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 02:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20693 battles
  • 661
  • [5PANZ] 5PANZ
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostHomeles, on Oct 06 2011 - 23:26, said:

You sound like the delusional German tankers.
No no no, delusional Russian tankers complain about armor, delusional German tankers just complain about accuracy. :P

Gigaton #24 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 02:39

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostFRUMindsEye, on Oct 08 2011 - 02:02, said:

That sounds a lot like the T32's front armor, does anybody know how the sizes of the front armor surfaces are in comparison? I know one reason the T32's armor is good is because it is small.

M103 hull is less wide (by about 15cm) but I think it's bit more tall. The overall height of the chassis shouldn't be too different, but M103 has less ground clearance (so basically, the hull extends more downwards, but not upwards). The turret on M103 is huge though. Also, M103 has steeper slope on glacis and it's also rounded.

Gyarados #25 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 03:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14368 battles
  • 11,504
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 06 2011 - 14:24, said:

They also said "I don't know why everyone is so anxiously waiting for the M103, the armor is not going to be substantially better than the T34".

That was actually from a "developer", not a "developer liaison".
I'm doubting Overlords credentials as a developer. He spends a lot of time on forums, talking to people, and posting on his blog. I would easily consider him a "developer liaison".

VirgilHilts #26 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 04:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostGyarados, on Oct 08 2011 - 03:06, said:

I'm doubting Overlords credentials as a developer. He spends a lot of time on forums, talking to people, and posting on his blog. I would easily consider him a "developer liaison".

Well, that's my point. Overlord did not say that. One of the developers did.

Gigaton #27 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 06:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 08 2011 - 04:24, said:

Well, that's my point. Overlord did not say that. One of the developers did.

Yes, it's from Storm I think. Anyway, the hull is going to get around 50% increase in protection on frontal arc or so. But on the other hand, the weak side armour will remain. So I guess it's down to what you consider to be substantial. At least the glacis (mind you, not the lower front) should bounce tier 8 heavies and tier 9 mediums most of the time (if only because the rounded shape of the frontal hull).

Certainly the increased protection is not going to make much difference vs. other tier 9 heavies.

Theodore #28 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 06:57

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 884 battles
  • 516
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 06 2011 - 20:44, said:

Where did you see this?

Because if you talking about Wiki stats that was the stock turret, and one of the reasons it was replaced was the US love using Defilade attacks, and the New Turret was a little higher, and had alot more Deppresion

http://a.imageshack....sidiofirepo.jpg

And the same number on A1/A2 page.

Termina #29 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 07:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16224 battles
  • 940
  • [PLOT] PLOT
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
Posted Image

So, how likely is it for those two things sticking out of the turret (Assuming that's the one that will be used) to be major weakspots, on par with the kv5's r2d2?
(Sorry if this has been brought up before)

Gigaton #30 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 07:36

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostTermina, on Oct 08 2011 - 07:23, said:

So, how likely is it for those two things sticking out of the turret (Assuming that's the one that will be used) to be major weakspots, on par with the kv5's r2d2?
(Sorry if this has been brought up before)

100% chance of being a weakspot. I'll give it 2 inches of armour.

Mow_Mow #31 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 07:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostTermina, on Oct 08 2011 - 07:23, said:

Posted Image

So, how likely is it for those two things sticking out of the turret (Assuming that's the one that will be used) to be major weakspots, on par with the kv5's r2d2?
(Sorry if this has been brought up before)

The devs were asked, and they said something along the lines of "Every tank has weak spots, you just have to protect it well."

As if its easy to protect a 10 foot tall hatch on top of your tank that's already about 15 stories tall.

djuice1701 #32 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 08:08

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8149 battles
  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
The only way to protect it is to be about 700m away and sniping everyone with you 0.21 accuracy gun!

Arzoo #33 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 08:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Someone already asked if they were really going to make the hatch the humongous weakspot it looks like, and the response was something to the affect of "it's how the tank was; we can't do anything about it."

I asked Overlord why the IS-4's external fuel tanks seem to be bugged. He told me that they were removed from the hitbox (read: made absolutely invulnerable while still blocking shots) for "gameplay reasons."

Dempsey_USMC #34 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 09:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10732 battles
  • 288
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostArzoo, on Oct 08 2011 - 08:44, said:

Someone already asked if they were really going to make the hatch the humongous weakspot it looks like, and the response was something to the affect of "it's how the tank was; we can't do anything about it."

I asked Overlord why the IS-4's external fuel tanks seem to be bugged. He told me that they were removed from the hitbox (read: made absolutely invulnerable while still blocking shots) for "gameplay reasons."

i suggest the the T110's copula being removed for game play reasons on the grounds that superman isnt avalible to be my commander thus not being able to stop shells ext.

SpectreHD #35 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 15:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16835 battles
  • 17,110
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostArzoo, on Oct 08 2011 - 08:44, said:

Someone already asked if they were really going to make the hatch the humongous weakspot it looks like, and the response was something to the affect of "it's how the tank was; we can't do anything about it."

I asked Overlord why the IS-4's external fuel tanks seem to be bugged. He told me that they were removed from the hitbox (read: made absolutely invulnerable while still blocking shots) for "gameplay reasons."

Like I said so many times. Only historical features if it disadvantages US and even German tanks. Tweaks and historical features to buff Soviet vehicles. That God damned 120mm better make this shit worth it. It is tough enough for my long 90mm on my Pershing to penetrate the sides of an IS-4 but the removal of a obvious weakspot is stupid. Also, the devs said they were going to remove the range finders on the T29's turret but of course, never happened.

Dominatus #36 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 16:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
The best we can hope for with that giant copula is that it's like the E-75's.

PHOENIX_ONE #37 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 16:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 222 battles
  • 441
  • [MIA] MIA
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View PostTheodore, on Oct 08 2011 - 06:57, said:

http://a.imageshack....sidiofirepo.jpg

And the same number on A1/A2 page.

25 mm rear armor...OMG

Minds_Eye #38 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 16:39

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15351 battles
  • 1,579
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

View PostPHOENIX_ONE, on Oct 08 2011 - 16:33, said:

25 mm rear armor...OMG

That's exactly what the current US heavies have. Not like anybody bounces anything from the rear anyways.

Mow_Mow #39 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 17:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
Currently heavies have 51mm. A freak bounce can still happen at extreme angles. But with 25mm the overmatching mechanic (if shell size > 3x armor, guaranteed penetration regardless of angle) will apply.

Gigaton #40 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 21:57

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostMow_Mow, on Oct 08 2011 - 17:29, said:

Currently heavies have 51mm. A freak bounce can still happen at extreme angles. But with 25mm the overmatching mechanic (if shell size > 3x armor, guaranteed penetration regardless of angle) will apply.

Autobounce due to angle will override overmatch. How else could people ricochet off SU-85B with BL-10.

But arty splash will certainly love M103's arse.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users