Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
109624 replies to this topic

Mow_Mow #2441 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 02:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,857
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 14 2012 - 23:38, said:

As an aside, I'm told I've won.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

KnightFandragon #2442 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 03:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 4618 battles
  • 6,719
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostNinjaFisT, on Feb 15 2012 - 00:37, said:

BLASPHEMY! THIS THREAD WILL NEVER BE LOCKED!

Quick! grab the torches and pitchforks!

You grab the torches and pitchforks...Ill grab my T34....right after I disassemble my Tetrarch and put the armor plates on the front of my T34, wouldnt want someone to throw a pitchfork at my tank...

GoldMountain #2443 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 03:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41 battles
  • 7,796
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 14 2012 - 23:38, said:


Spoiler                     

Is this the T110 hull, M10/M36 thing or something else entirely?

Zergling #2444 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,940
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostOnyx, on Feb 14 2012 - 08:05, said:

Pretty much.  Firepower, Armor, Mobility.  Choose 2.  1 will be great, 1 will be decent, one will be terrible.

Good way to explain how tanks are balanced.


Here's my take on the current T10 balance, and how it fails.

Maus: Armor great, Firepower decent, Mobility terrible.

T34: Firepower great, Mobility Decent, Armor terrible.

IS-7: Armor great, Firepower decent, Mobility decent.


Another way of putting it is Armor, Firepower and Mobility each have a score of 1 to 3; tanks have 6 points total to spread between those 3 catagories.

Maus: Armor 3, Firepower 2, Mobility 1

E-100: Armor 2, Firepower 2.5, Mobility 1.5

T34: Armor 1, Firepower 3, Mobility 2

IS-7: Armor 3, Firepower 2, Mobility 2

IS-7 has 7 points... which kinda explains why IS-7 in its current form is overpowered.

Arzoo #2445 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 06:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,773
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostZergling, on Feb 15 2012 - 06:38, said:

Good way to explain how tanks are balanced.


Here's my take on the current T10 balance, and how it fails.

Maus: Armor great, Firepower decent, Mobility terrible.

T34: Firepower great, Mobility Decent, Armor terrible.

IS-7: Armor great, Firepower decent, Mobility decent.


Another way of putting it is Armor, Firepower and Mobility each have a score of 1 to 3; tanks have 6 points total to spread between those 3 catagories.

Maus: Armor 3, Firepower 2, Mobility 1

E-100: Armor 2, Firepower 2.5, Mobility 1.5

T34: Armor 1, Firepower 3, Mobility 2

IS-7: Armor 3, Firepower 2, Mobility 2

IS-7 has 7 points... which kinda explains why IS-7 in its current form is overpowered.

Pretty sure the IS-7's gun is superior to the Maus's in just about every way.

SpectreHD #2446 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 06:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17206 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Ah, could me about the M10 and M36 or the T110's hull.

SFC_Storm #2447 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 06:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostArzoo, on Feb 14 2012 - 07:46, said:

The T30 doesn't compete directly with the IS-7; you make clear trade-offs for a gun that is better in both pub and organized gameplay.

I'm not saying the T110 needs to be worse, I'm saying it needs to be approximately as good. Some aspects of it should certainly be better than the IS-7... but if ALL of them are then... surely you can see the problem? I can easily see an argument for it kicking the IS-7's ass in terms of both firepower and mobility if it has poor armor (and anything below 240mm is pretty poor as far as I'm concerned).

But if you want all that AND 260mm effective armor then I don't know what to say to you... it's like wanting the M60 to be our tier 9 medium, kick the T-54's ass because the M60 is simply a better tank, and then complaining that it's Russian Bias that we don't get the M60. No, it's not Russian bias that we don't get the tank, it's BALANCE that we don't get the tank.


Sorry but even the 255mm Frontal I want is just "OK" in T10

Hell its only 10m more thana IS4 and its 25mm less than the E75, both have stronger lowers than its 195mm, ALso its sides bounce like superball.

Sorry man you are eeing way to many "Advantages" when in reality its just normal T9 Armor, but we so used to shit, guys lik you count it as being almost as good....Its not even clpse to the IS7, all it can do is frontally "Pref when its crossing open to cover, or cresting over jil lto snipe 1-2 shots" Otherwise 255-262mm Frontal gets eaten alive in a brawl, and the second the 150mm side Armor shows its bye bye birde, not to mention its 51mm rear...LOLS

That is not UBER TANK, thats solid Armor in 1 section in tank still 30-65mm Less than the IS7`s plates, 50+ with the Maus and 65-60mm un ungled in the E100.

Come on guys IS7= 2x 342mm R/L plate 1 290mm Upper Glacis, 255mm Nose/Weld section and 1 tiny small DMG sticker sized 220ish MM plat, but if you aim there you will hit maybe 1/30 shots and right next to it is 342 and 290mm plates. ALl with a godlike Turret fro mall Directions. All with 260 Pen 490Alpha 2450 DPM Gun.

Maus- Well its a Maus lols 200mm RAW ARMOR with slope making it all 300ish except lower plate, Angled the Maus goes to 360mm Arm only weakspot is 240mm Turret which still sheds 35% of T9 Guns. ANd has great 128mm canon but mainly its a moving bunker.

E100- IMO Tiedwith IS7 in diff way, IS& is attacker and its front is godly has a meds height, a Panther 1`s SPeed and when it moves it makes Armor way way nmore slippery all while its killingyou.
E100 is opposite 330ish PEN wih HEAT but when you know how to shoot flat surface's rapes, US tanks are Dead vs E100 everytime, a T30 can bounce off a 355mm Upper Glacis, a 330 Heat round cannot miss a T30 almost ever., It goes through all there mantlets like nothing...Literally nothing. ALos it does 750 DMG, so get 3 together and they kill almost any tank there is . 3 E100`slock down entire sides with a mix of 2 50b`s for ROF and the resat IS7`s rushing thee weak side and you win 9/10 Alpha is king and right now it goes 50`bs since they basically have 1200 Alpha in 10 Secs {I always assume 1 bounce or miss]

So a 255mm upper vs a 342mm,342mm,290mm,210mm, and tiny 217mm and thats all front. All with what ? 2450 DPM vs 3k meaning 550 DPM for almost double its Armor

So 255mm vs Maus`s 295mm un angled at its worst is night andday better 1 bounces T9 guns 40-50% he other 80-90%, and the second you angle the Maus....Forget it 345-375mm. ALl for faster tank by alot good mobility and 550 DPS that wont pn the Maus`s front :)

ANd last 255mm vs 345mm UNANGLED with a 350 Alpha Bonus and only 280+ DPM advantage...Sorry thats over powered on the other end :0

Stop comparing thm to anything but T10`s guys, they have us US guys trained do ell to beg for scraps when theres a 1/2 way decent option our own indoctrinated HUSK say how OP it is :)

Zergling #2448 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 07:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,940
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostArzoo, on Feb 15 2012 - 06:43, said:

Pretty sure the IS-7's gun is superior to the Maus's in just about every way.

From the wiki:

Maus; 12.8cm KwK 44 L/55
Penetration: 246mm
Damage: 490
Rate of fire: 4.8 RPM
Accuracy: 0.33
Aim time: 2.5s

IS-7; S-70
Penetration: 260mm
Damage: 490
Rate of fire: 5 RPM
Accuracy: 0.35
Aim time: 3.0s

DPM is pretty close, but S-70 has 14mm more pen, but less accuracy and slower aim time. They seem mostly equal.

Arzoo #2449 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 07:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,773
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Oh right, I forgot that the Maus still had high accuracy.

Mow_Mow #2450 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 08:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,857
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
IIRC the Maus' 12.8cmKwK44 shoots at 4.6 RPM, not 4.8. 4.8 is for the E-100, but I'm not completely sure.

In addition, the IS-7's armor can't be compared to the Maus. I'd rate IS-7's armor at 2.25 or 2.5, but not 3. You can angle Maus armor, but you can't angle IS-7 armor. And the IS-7 only looks agile when you are going down hills or when you compare it to the Maus. It's not really that mobile.

Prav #2451 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 08:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12657 battles
  • 477
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
12,79 second reload on the Maus, 4,69 RPM. 12,5 on the E-100.

And yeah, it's important to remember that the IS-7's armor is really only good when pointed straight at the target. An enemy at 2 o' clock is not going to have much trouble punching through.

Plus APCR just laughs at angles. It's got, what, 10° normalization now?

KnightFandragon #2452 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 10:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 4618 battles
  • 6,719
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostPrav, on Feb 15 2012 - 08:48, said:

12,79 second reload on the Maus, 4,69 RPM. 12,5 on the E-100.

And yeah, it's important to remember that the IS-7's armor is really only good when pointed straight at the target. An enemy at 2 o' clock is not going to have much trouble punching through.

Plus APCR just laughs at angles. It's got, what, 10° normalization now?


Eh? My T34 cant punch through the front of an IS7 front from point blank friggin range, angled or not...

CCC_Dober #2453 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 11:54

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,476
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010
Was a typo I guess. Prolly meant T30, which would match the firepower rating.

guywitn0life #2454 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 11:59

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 8133 battles
  • 1,237
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-07-2010

View PostKnightFandragon, on Feb 15 2012 - 10:12, said:

Eh? My T34 cant punch through the front of an IS7 front from point blank friggin range, angled or not...

Thank 7.0 for this. After grinding up the T29 and T32 with finicky penetration on IS-4s and IS-7s, I was so glad to get the T34's 120 and finally be able to reliably punch thru an IS-4 at range without having to grit my teeth and hold my breath and cross my toes every time I took a shot. It was nice to be able to finally give back a little of what I've been taking since tier 6 against those tanks..

7.0 nixed that, and now it's back to the same ole' crap, even with the T34's 120.

7.0 will go down in history as a proxy-nerf to US vehicles in my book.

The_Chieftain #2455 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:12

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17952 battles
  • 10,008
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostMinds_Eye, on Feb 15 2012 - 00:00, said:

Care to elaborate?

http://mylittlefacew...31217656571.png

I'm listening.

LMAO. How can I not respond to something that cute?

The general gist of it was that I was definitively informed that was the appropriate personnel whose signature was required to sign off on the work required to change T110's hull shape back to a wedge front have signed off on it and it shall be done. Beyond that, I have no details, I don't know if it will be implemented in time for the 7.2 release or later, or exactly what the nature of the slope will be (I personally expect an angled one like the plan drawings show, not an M1-style glacis as per the perspective drawing). However, I am confident enough that it's going to happen that I make mention of it now.

rotorian #2456 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15724 battles
  • 488
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 15 2012 - 17:12, said:

LMAO. How can I not respond to something that cute?

Please, please do not encourage the ponyzombie, lest the apocalypse happens  sooner than expected.

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 15 2012 - 17:12, said:

However, I am confident enough that it's going to happen that I make mention of it now.

Mucho grass.

Now, some lock one the ponies.

g,d,r

ForcestormX #2457 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 10420 battles
  • 11,788
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 15 2012 - 17:12, said:

The general gist of it was that I was definitively informed that was the appropriate personnel whose signature was required to sign off on the work required to change T110's hull shape back to a wedge front have signed off on it and it shall be done. Beyond that, I have no details, I don't know if it will be implemented in time for the 7.2 release or later, or exactly what the nature of the slope will be (I personally expect an angled one like the plan drawings show, not an M1-style glacis as per the perspective drawing). However, I am confident enough that it's going to happen that I make mention of it now.

Awesome.

SpectreHD #2458 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17206 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 15 2012 - 17:12, said:

LMAO. How can I not respond to something that cute?

The general gist of it was that I was definitively informed that was the appropriate personnel whose signature was required to sign off on the work required to change T110's hull shape back to a wedge front have signed off on it and it shall be done. Beyond that, I have no details, I don't know if it will be implemented in time for the 7.2 release or later, or exactly what the nature of the slope will be (I personally expect an angled one like the plan drawings show, not an M1-style glacis as per the perspective drawing). However, I am confident enough that it's going to happen that I make mention of it now.

Posted Image

Here is to hope it makes the T110E5's hull tougher. Thank you much, Chief for all your work.

GoldMountain #2459 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41 battles
  • 7,796
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Awwww yea.
Your the best Chief.

rotorian #2460 Posted Feb 15 2012 - 17:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15724 battles
  • 488
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
You guys are killing the ponies.






25 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 25 guests, 0 anonymous users