Storm shows new models

Posted on by

Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/246082.html

Straight from Storm: IS-3 is going to have its model reworked. It will now have correctly shaped pike nose and the turret will be of proper size.

e74fae790fb78026cde4aa4874f3e8a9

As announced earlier, Panzer V/IV will also get reworked model:

7a81a142ab3d972752f8f2ece16b42e8

119 thoughts on “Storm shows new models”

            • Its OP in hands of a good player, like every tank is.

              I dont think IS 3 is OP. Armour is easily penetrated, pen of the gun is same as Tiger II.

            • it’s not OP as in overpowered more like frigging troll armor bounces stuff that should knock trough it without trouble on a regular basis.

            • @Duble
              So you’re saying that all tanks in this game are equally strong, and there are no differences in their performance? You’re clearly retarded and you must suck at this game and life in general. Shitty tanks are still shitty in the hands of great players, even if those players manage to do well playing them – because they would do 10 times as well with an OP tank.

            • I disagree with ARCAGNELL0′s post about IS-3 being OP, because even some of my tier 7 tanks call it prey. ;)

            • Damn Tigers routinely penetrate mine frontally, I know that much. And half the time they hurt the poor bullied ammo rack while they’re at it, the bastards.

            • 1. Wait for IS-3 to fire or just bounce his shoot off your properly angled armor.
              2. Shoot
              3. Ram
              4. Shoot again
              5. Peek back
              6. Repeat

              Or also :
              1. Get below its awful gun depression’s reach
              2. Detrack
              3. Profit :)

              I’ve got one too, it’s a great medium-heavy tank but it does have pretty obvious flaws. Its DPM is not so high compared to other heavies, and it can’t go hulldown well yet desperately needs to for survival !

        • I doubt it could get *worse* anyway… the nose looks longer ergo more angled in the render though.

          • It should simply become a 110.

            The lower plate would become weaker, while the upper plate should reliably bounce ~220mm pen guns

          • xD Historical accurate T62A would have 6-9 RPM due to its autoloading mechanism, while Leo 1 and M48 would have 9-12 RPM because of ergonomic interiour design+ enouth space for the loaders. on that point WG will never be historical accurate…

            • Wrong, muthafuckaaaaaaaaa!

              T-62 variant A had a 100mm rifled gun (D-54TS), live with it.

              Was it ever used? No, but who cares, so many paper tanks already, and this one was real.

            • The T-62 we have in game is a T-62A, and that had a 100 rifled gun. WG already said they will not add smooth bore guns.

              The M48′s were upgraded by Isreal with the L7 105 mm guns, WG seem to be happy to give tanks guns that they could fit even if we never saw any in service with the gun in the first place, like the IS-3 with the bl-9 gun.

              Also, can anyone clear this up for me, The T-54 in game has 120 mm hull armour, but there are a lot of different sources that give different thicknesses, mostly 100 mm hull for the full production model, with the prototype having 120 mm hull which had to be reduced.

              But I have seen people question if there was ever any T-54 that had 120 mm armour saying that it was never reduced and simply never had 120 mm hull… so can tell me where WG got their information from, and is it correct?

  4. Why do they keep those damn side doors open on the turret spaced armour? They were ALWAYS closed in combat.

    • Not if the turret crew wanted to be able to A.) make use of the side-hatch vision flaps B.) egress in haste if necessary, I suspect. Ofc later turret models IIRC eliminated first the observation block and then the hatches themselves, but this obviously isn’t one of those.

      • So, when, in your opinion, would it be acceptable to have the doors closed? And I’m not talking about when it’s in a museum, but when it is still used

          • That doesn’t make sense, why bother closing them if you are in a safe zone? Also, if you go from safe to not so safe, you could forget to open them and as such go into battle with them closed, which would explain them being closed ingame as well…

            • I’m struggling to make any sense out of that second sentence. Anyways, I take it you didn’t get the point of the comparision?

            • Well, didn’t tank commanders (TC, right?) get out of their hatches when they knew it was safe so as to get a better view around their tanks? But in order for him to get out of his hatch and become vulnerable to small arms I figure he should know he’s safe. So that’s where I took your comparison. Please do correct me if I didn’t quite get your comparison.

            • *groan* No, I’m referring to the common practice of the TC having at least his head, if not whole upper body, out of his hatch for better situational awareness. Which obviously put him at some risk from shell fragments, small arms and what have you but then again not seeing the enemy tank first wasn’t exactly healthy either.
              Tradeoffs, young padawan.

            • Ok, I’m at a loss, in the end you’re saying the doors should be closed or not because it seems to me that you’re contradicting yourself…

            • What? All the time I’ve been arguing that there’s perfectly sound reasons why they might be left open even in combat, quite contrary to what Anon up there claimed.

            • Well that’s what I was arguing against, that there are situations in which you would find them closed, which would mean that it would be just as ok to make them closed. And since it is something that would be appreciated by the community they could implement it. It’s just that they don’t really care so they do as they want…
              But the point is they could if they wanted to.

            • Well duh. My point was just that leaving them open is also perfectly legit for that turret design.

    • Yeah they should close those damn doors or leave all hatches on all other tanks open as well! Damn anti-German bias!

      • Yeah those bastards! stop adding additional armor to german tanks!!!!1111111111 fucking anti german bias!!!111111111111oneoneone

        • Calling those sheets of steel additional armour is an insult, especially since WOT hasn’t got any sneaky Soviet tank hunters with AT rifles roaming around. At least they could make it visually pleasant (hatches closed)…

          • Actually those sheets are additional armor and its left open or else the turret would become too powerful in tier having the entire side and rear being covered by spaced armor specially since it would make it invulnerable to HEAT. The way HEAT is now it loses pen for every mm it advances once it hits the spaced armor so that open area between the armor and the guards the HEAT would be losing pen as it crosses that distance.

            And yes it does work as armor because in 8.5 when 105 derp was 150 pen I had a M4 fire 2 HEAT rounds at my Pz IV. The first round bounced off the curved part of that spaced armor on the front half of the turret because I was aiming at a different tank and had that spot heavily angled from the M4′s point of view

            • I’d understand leaving them open IF the hull also had the spaced armour, but they don’t, meaning the Pz IV and Pz V/IV are even more vulnerable than they should. and it should also be realized, that spaced armour only has real effectiveness against HEAT rounds, so lesson? don’t fire HEAT at those targets.

            • I believe some developers stated those armour plates, in fact, DO NOT work as additional (spaced) armour, since they are too thin. Alas, no benefit, just lousy cosmetics.

  10. I wonder they continue to commit resources to making changes that no-one has asked for, while failing to fix problems with other tanks that have been discussed at great length.

    FV4202 turret and HESH, for example…

    • Beware of what you wish for, because FV4202 has not only turret, but also a hull and a gun, and even as the historical turret you are asking for was great, the historical gun (which was 20pdr, not 105mm L7) and the hull weren’t good to be on a tier X tank…
      Yet I have to agree with you on that HESH issue… Maybe WG should allow more types of ammo then only three per gun, and balance their effects and mechanics accordingly

      • Weren’t they planning to revise the HESH mechanics sometime down the road? I got the impression they intend to give it its own system, the current “high-pen HE” solution being basically a placeholder.

        • They were planning that, but they also said that it won’t be soon…

  13. Is3 110mm front hull armor with pike nose maybe 220mm front armor :(
    Tiger2 top gun 10,5 L68 pen 225 :)
    But if rng troll you XD

    • I will pen the IS3′s pike nose 9/10 times. The “TrollArmor” is only effective against those who have no fucking clue what theyre doing.

      And IS-3 turret also is easy to pen, now it looks a bit harder.
      Ultimately, the new model looks a lot more like IS-8

  15. Great buff for the IS-3, frontal hull slope gets better (looks almost like on 110). The current one uses these http://wotarmory.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/is-3-historical-armor-scheme.jpg
    so 56° is seemingly wrong considering these images

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/IS-3_tank_in_Park_of_Victory,_Togliatti,_Russia.JPG

    it might be some 60° after the patch. Turret becomes higher, thus the thin roof becomes harder to penetrate :)

  18. Pingback: [Sammelthread] World of Tanks - Seite 2808

  19. Does anyone know what was the historical designation of ingame Pz. V/IV?
    I suspect it was something like “BPz. V mit Pz IV Turm Ausf. F2″ (or “Bergepanzer V Panther mit Panzer IV Ausführung F2 Turm”, which means “Armored recovery vehicle with Panzer V Panther hull with Panzer IV turret of F2 modification”)

      • Which last one? You mean the “Bergepanzer V Panther mit Panzer IV Ausführung F2 Turm” and it’s translation? That was something I humbly tried to fabricate acording to the way how Germans designed the names of their vehicles, so if you meant that, then I am really humbled and honored by your opinion, because my lacking knowledge of german language is IMHO too bad to be compared with magnificent work of Hegel, Kant or even Goethe. :)

        • I was really referring to the period fashion of abusing the Hell out of the quirk in the German language that allows for absurdly lenghty sentences – IIRC the record specimens run for well over a page – but if you feel flattered by the comparision, by all means. :p

    • http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-V_Panther.php

      lists a Bergepanther mit Ausgesetzem PzKfw.IV Turm als Befehlspanzer, a Bergepanther retro-fitted command version, equipped here with a spare Panzer IV F-2 turret.

      and a Panzer V Panther Ausf. D-1 mit PzKpfw IV H Türm, Schwere Heeres Panzerjäger Abteilung 653, Russia, early 1944. It was one of the many field conversions using surplus Panzer IV H turrets and serving as command tanks.

  21. As Long as it won’t ne available vor regulär (Premium) users on eu server quite unimportant what happens to Pz V/IV.

    • Where do you see a buff? The model is taller = easiest to hit and penetrate and more difficult to hide. Now the rear of the turret won’t autobounce shots anymore. For me it’s a nerf, and the tank need it. Not as much as the OP-1s but the tank is one of the best (if not the best) TVIII heavy.

    • Stop trolling if you have trouble with IS3 you are doing it wrong. At the beginning the battle i said: “Im gonna ammorack that IS3″ and guess what happened, 1st shot ammorack full health. Cheeks are weak. LP is good to pen from a low to the ground angle. Turret is autopen. Imo i have more trouble with KT or T32 which is easily set hulldown. And 50 100 kills IS3 with 1 clip easy.

      • why is it when i play TC is encounter mostly IS-3, KT is to slow and T32 doesn’t have enough penetration(with normal AP). every HT on T8 has its pro’s and conn’s, i believe T8 is one of the most balanced tiers in wot when looking at HT.

        the AMX 50 100 can kill any T8 if all 6 rounds pen and do average of 300 damage there is no T8 with 1800 HP, so even this T8 is compensated for its weak armor.

        • Flexibility. In TC you want flexible heavies. IS-3 is the Jack of All Trades with just the right balance of mobility, survivability and firepower. All the other tanks shine in one area, IS-3 is “good enough” without excelling at anything. One on one, everything else being equal (player skill), it probably is the weakest tier 8 heavy.

          All that being said, I love mine and there are still enough silly T32 and KT drivers at tier 8 to take on head to head.

  27. IS-3: looks like the gunshield now actually or partially covers the plate above the gun, cant be really sure without animated comparrison or both pictures side by side. if so a weakspot has been removed or made harder to hit.

    Pz V/IV: had that one with pre-order but sold it after like 200 battles, no alfa, no penetration, no gun depression and even when LFP isn’t penetrated everyone still shoots the PZIV stock turret. the Schurtzen while acting as spaced armour only and 10mm in the majority and in some spots 20-50mm, the actual turret armour is the same as the stock Pz IV turret, its just heavier.

    even if they make i look better and add schurtzen to bith turret and hull, its still a lemon. the only role i could find for it when i had it was scout interception, and then mostly by ramming.