lots of people were asking about the new upcoming tier 8 heavy tank, the “112″, especially in relationship with another tier 8 heavy, the IS-6, because both fill the same niche (relatively mobile, decently armored tank with relatively worse armor). Let’s have a look at the both of them then. Keep however in mind that the 112 data are based on 0.8.6 test server and might (and most likely will) change to some extent.
Here’s a comparative picture of both the vehicles in question (as posted by Twistoon (EU forums) here)
You can click on the picture to make it bigger of course.
Let’s start with the turret. There is no doubt about it, while both turrets are relatively well armored, when facing this vehicle up front, the 112 has a clear advantage here. The turret is well rounded and despite not being as thick on the sides on the paper, the side armor is approximately of the same thickness. Frontal turret armor however is much thicker on the 112 (compare the 240mm to IS-6′s 150mm). The mantlet of the 112 is also much thicker (240mm, compared to the 150mm one). Both have a relatively big gap behind the mantlet, but 112 has it thicker (not that it matters that much, when considering the mantlet thickness). Both vehicles have comparable weakspots (periscopes, hatches), but there is the matter of the 112′s upper turret 100mm plate. As a conclusion, 112′s turret is better, but not as much as you’d think, as the upper turret weakness can (and will) be exploited.
While the upper frontal hull armor is better on the 112 again (20-40mm thicker), lower frontal armor is 112′s weakspot. 80mm with roughly the same slope as the one of the IS-6, the protection is lower. If the lower frontal armor gets exposed, some serious angling will be required. Side hull armor is definitely thinner on the 112, which also has a bigger 30mm spaced armor strip covering a part of the tracks, improving the anti-HEAT effect, as well as acting as a second spaced armor layer. That gives the IS-6 an advantage. Generally speaking, I’d say it will be difficult to angle the hull of the 112 without creating the “IS-3″ effect (being penetrated thru the frontal part of the tracks into the hull). Here, IS-6 has a clear advantage.
Overall, despite the fact that both tanks have different armor layouts, I do believe that in head to head combat, IS-6 driver would have an advantage, as the hull armor of the 112 offers several spots to exploit. On the other hand, there is the visible IS-6 frontal weakspots.
Both vehicles have relative good armor, but the 112 is better. If played defensively and with its lower place hidden behind an obstacle, the advantage becomes even bigger.
When considering the data from gamemodels3d:
112 is equipped with the Chinese copy of the D-25, the D-25TA, while the IS-6 carries the D-30 field gun.
Accuracy – 0,46 for both (a ties) (it’s worth noting that moving accuracy dispersion is better for 112, by roughly 10 percent)
Rate of fire – 5 for 112, 5,13 for IS-6 (IS-6 wins, but slightly, the difference between reload times is 0,3s)
Damage – 390 for both
Penetration – 175 for both
Gold penetration – 217 for IS-6, 300 for 112
The 112 gold ammo is probably the best feature of the vehicle, making it instantly a better choice than the IS-6, despite the slightly lower rate of fire. 300 penetration for a limited matchmaker is brutal and there is a danger that when spamming gold shells, this vehicle will become overpowered.
Aim time – 3,4 for IS-6, 3,1 for 112 (a clear 112 advantage)
Both vehicles have the same aim circle dispersion after a shot. Gun depression is also the same (-6), while IS-6 has a slightly better elevation (20, compared to 17 of 112). One minor issue is very low gun depression of 112, when the turret is facing backward, but that can be easily avoided.
One last factor is the shell velocity. While the regular shells of the IS-6 fly slower than those of the 112 (790 vs 900), gold shells of IS-6 fly faster (988 to 720). It might not seem like it, but this is an advantage for the 112. When do you need shell velocity? When sniping. Both guns are quite inaccurate, but with current accuracy buff across the board, the distance of engagement increased in general. Thus, in mid-to-long range combat, 112 has a clear advantage, while lower velocity for the 112 gold shells doesn’t matter that much, since gold shells are not used for “lucky” shots across the map, but when you are in danger. Plus, the IS-6 gold shells are subcaliber, while the 112 gold shells are HEAT, which makes them not lose penetration with distance.
It is also worth noting that 112 turret rotates slightly faster (26 deg/s to 24 deg/s)
Clear victory for the 112. Its gun will be its trademark.
First, the obvious: Hp/ton. While both vehicles have roughly equal level of protection, the 112 is actually cca 5,5 tons lighter (48,822 compared to 43,327 tons). However, while the IS-6 has a 700hp engine (14,34 hp/t), 112 only has 580hp (13,38 hp/t). This implies that the 112 will be slightly less mobile. The 112 engine has a lower fire chance, but that’s about the only advantage it has.
However, the speed limits are something else: 112 will be able to reach 45 km/h, while the IS-6 can only reach 35 km/h. In other words, if given time to accelerate, 112 will be faster. Also, thanks to better terrain resistance (for bad and medium terrain 20 percent!), 112 will be more maneuverable in terrain. Both vehicles have the same hull traverse speed – 26 degrees per second, so if you want to know how 112 turns, you can check out the IS-6 (if you have it, that is).
One could argue yet another victory for the 112, but not a decisive one, as acceleration will most likely be worse than that of the IS-6. On the other hand, the ability to reach higher speeds will make this vehicle quite useful.
Both vehicles have a 4 man crew with the same roles (radioman is the commander, then there’s driver, loader and gunner). 112 however can see further (380 viewrange, IS-6 has 350) and has longer radio range (600, compared to 440 of 112). Both vehicles have the same limited MM planned (eg. neither will meet tier 10′s in battle).
I do believe that for an average tanker, especially for a wallet warrior, 112 will be a better vehicle. Its decisive factor are the 300 shells, which – compared with the 0.8.6 improved accuracy – are destined to HURT. While the IS-6 is mediocre in most respects (but not totally hopeless in any), 112 has some clearcut advantages over it, such as the gun and the speed.
Personally, I believe that even without the 300 pen shells, 112 would be a relatively decent vehicle, but the gold shells give it an edge even over regular vehicles. Therefore it is my believe that some factors (possibly the gold shells penetration) will be nerfed for the 0.8.7 general test. Without such nerf, there is a danger of 112 becoming another Type 59, flooding the tier 7-9 battles. I am not sure we or WG need that.