Making the IS-3 More Historical

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

IS-3 is one of the more popular heavies in this game. It’s got the looks firewpower and armor to match it and when it comes to brawling, few things surpass tons of Russian steel. However, it has one catch – the BL-9 gun.

Sure, the gun performs relatively well – it has massive firepower and while not exactly the most accurate gun out there, its penetration is very decent and especially with gold ammo it rocks. The problem with it is that the vehicle does not look historical with it. This is the setup with D-25T:

IS-3_9-33-23

And this with the BL-9

IS-3_9-33-28

Now, BL-9 on IS-3 when it comes to historicity is dubious. I’ve read some info about it actually being proposed, but the gun pre-dates the IS-3 by quite a bit, so – who knows? I don’t know whether a prototype was ever built but there was at least a plan to do that, so it’s safe to assume that the gun is probably unhistorical, although, as a simply better gun, the BL-9 is used in most cases and only hardcore history fans use the D-25T voluntarily for the “authentic look”. Russian player Baronp in his post proposes to change that. This post is based mostly on his work.

BL-9 was added into the game a long time ago as a way of improving the IS-3 performance, because on tier 8, the historical performance of the D-25T is not enough. Ever since, the developers changed their policy significantly (some of the worst unhistorical crap came in the beginning of the development and was gradually switched for more historical options) and thus it is possible to consider replacing the BL-9 with a more historical, yet also well-performing option.

One of the more obvious (and also common) solutions to this issue is – instead of having unhistorical guns – to introduce more advanced/modern shells for historical guns and thus keeping the performance while maintaining a reasonable amount of historicity (a tank with a fake gun is – when it comes to historical realism – worse than a tank with a correct gun, firing shells available from 1960 or so). In case of the IS-3 there was this idea by SerB to do exactly the same thing – take the D-25T and replace the shells around so that the gun gains improved performance. This however was not related to the IS-3 itself. Originally, there was an idea to actually have the IS-4 with its historical (D-25T) gun only (!), firing advanced ammunition instead, at least that’s how SerB personally imagined it. It was tested and it did not work for one reason or another and the idea was abandoned, at least for the IS-4. But what if the same thing was applied to the IS-3?

Currently, the penetration of the IS-3 guns looks as such:

D-25T: 175/217/61
BL-9: 225/265/68

From here, the solution is somewhat obvious: put the gold D-25T gold shell as the silver shell and the 265mm penetration HEAT round (the ammunition between D-25T and BL-9 is compatible, the increase of performance from the same shells from BL-9 was influenced by longer barrel) as a gold round and there you have it: 217/265/61 sounds acceptable, does it not?

Well, there is a catch of course. Both guns use the same ammunition! The silver shot is armor piercing UBR-471, the gold shot is a armor piercing BR-471D (in the game, it is implemented as a “subcaliber” round, but this is not correct and it is a known bug, that will apparently be fixed at some point). The increase of performance for both was not due to the properties of the ammunition, but due to the properties of the gun, most notably the barrel length. Simply put, if you make the BL-9 gold ammo, into D-25T gold ammo, the penetration of the very same round decreases from 265mm to 217mm. When you switch the BR-741D AP (“subcaliber” in game) ammo to the silver position on the D-25T, you have nothing to put as a gold shell. Or perhaps there is another shell?

Yes well, this is another catch. Literature apparently mentions only three types of shells for the D-25T specifically (apart from the unusable ones such as HE, illumination shells, training etc.):

BR-471 AP-T (sharp round without cap)
BR-471B APBC-T (blunt round with cap)
BR-471D APCBC-T

Their penetration values can be seen in the following table (first column is the caliber, second the name of the shell, third the angle and then it’s penetration at various distances – asterisk means missing data):

23673_original

Direct comparison with the game data is not possible: first, there are no data for “less than 100 meters”, with which the game operates. Second, BR-471D shell has quite different properties from the game (ingame penetration at 500 meters is 204mm for the D-25T, in real life it was apparently 185mm). In any case, the table does not offer the answer to what we are looking for (you might have noticed the BM11 subcaliber round in it, but 320mm penetration at 2 km (450+ at 100m) is not exactly what we want in the game). The answer lies somewhere else.

According to the data, compiled from Russian sources by Baronp, a shell exists, that could fit the profile for the gold shell.

122mm ZVBK5 (ZVBK6M) round, firing a non-rotating HEAT shell ZBK10 (ZBK10M). This shot is designed for the Soviet D-25TS and A-19 guns and its purpose is to destroy armored targets and bunkers as well.

Round weight: 26,125kg
Shell weight: 18 kg
Muzzle velocity: 820 m/s
Penetration: 400mm (any distance, 0 degrees) or 200mm (60 degrees)

So, what we have here is a HEAT shell with a cca 400mm penetration – yes, that’s kinda OP for tier 8, but this can be balanced (as in, nerfed): many – if not practically all – later HEAT (gold) shells in the game have less penetration than they have in real life, sometimes by as much as 100-150mm.

Obviously, you can’t introduce the shell into the original D-25T, that would screw up the game completely (imagine the IS on tier 7 firing this, hilarious), but what you can do is replace the BL-9 with another version of the D-25T, the D-25TA, which is visually identical (D-25TS is already distinctive), but it has some loading mechanism changes, which could be used to justify the rate of fire increase.

And so, you get a gun that looks authentic on the IS-3 with 217/270 (? nerf)/61 penetration properties. By the way, this way the IS-8 could apparently be fixed as well. Sounds interesting, no?

70 thoughts on “Making the IS-3 More Historical”

      • It’s not IS-8′s top gun; it didn’t need a fix.

        Unless BL-9 on ST-I is also replaced.

        • Not even sure what is the point of ultra-realist in a arcade game. There is so much other in-game fluff, changes like these to the IS-3 are pointless. If the game modeled large calibers/mass correctly any 120mm+ guns would literally rip away parts of tanks. Not to mention HE rounds doing massive damage and possibly knocking tanks in 1 shot.

          IS-3 is very balanced tank, it has junk front armor and a decent gun/mobility to compensate. Why nerf already mediocre tank especially after the turret nerf? Current APCR rounds are much much better than your proposed HEAT replacement. HEAT is modeled as pure garbage currently. I can attest to that in Chinese 112… regular AP penetrates better than premium HEAT, I got so sick of it getting eat up with no damage I stopped using them even in crucial situations.

          • Odd. I never bounce HEAT. EVER. RNJesus may bounce it for me due to iffy accuracy, but I can’t recall bouncing a HEAT shell for bad aiming on my part, or for failing to penetrate spaced armor.
            You just gotta know what angle you can penetrate spaced armor at.
            Although admittedly, I’m talking about Soviet HEAT. Soviet tanks have genocide-assisted, Stalin approved heat seeking accuracy when compared to Chinese tanks. Whatever dark magic Stalin uses for his tanks, Mao dissaproves, and so maybe aiming for correct HEAT-friendly sloped armor/Tracks is harder.

            In any way, I do believe that the disadvantages of HEAT are overrated. Can’t penetrate spaced armor? Go for the flattest part, with the least angle toward you. It’ll likely penetrate, even a mantlet or such.

            • They don’t typically bounce … they just get eaten up by invisible HEAT-eating monster. I don’t remember if any tier 7-8 A-19 derivative 122mm Soviet guns used HEAT. Chinese for whatever reason are the only ones using HEAT in 122 and they all behave the same(Junky) (IS-2, 112, 110 etc.).
              Like I said… they should really re-think how it works in the game, not very predictable when you need that extra penetration in a hairy situation. That is mostly the reason why higher-tier guns that use HEAT have ridiculous penetrations values… they just suck and don’t compare 1 to 1 in game to AP/ACPR.

              If tank is a brawler, (which IS-3 can definitely qualify as), I would take ACPR every time.

  2. as far as I am concerned they may add hovercraft tanks, armored cars, steam powered tanks and alien saucers into the game as long as they all are balanced.
    Playablity over historicity, always

      • Do you honestly think they’d lose players over historical inaccuracies when we have so many paper tanks or fantasy tanks that never even reached prototype stages? Ever heard of the Waffentrager E-100?

        Where the hell have you been all this time?

        And more importantly, are we still lying to ourselves that historical accuracy is all that important?

        • “so many paper tanks or fantasy tanks that never even reached prototype stages?”
          Counting vehicles known for 9.3 release, we have 367 vehicles (to be) implemented in WoT.

          Counting the vehicles that didn’t reach prototyping, we have 77

          So the paper factor is only 21%. It’s a chunk, but not as overbearing as some might think

          • Do you have a website with the summary of mass-produced/prototyped/drawing-board/mere idea tanks implemented in WoT?

            I’d be curious to see if I’m actually correct in assuming that the French tree is actually entirely made of real tanks and or prototypes, despite all the morons who yelled “frence has no tenks lol, imaginary shit”, while the US and German ones have many pretty-much invented vehicles.

  5. Reminds me of the old idea from the NA forums to introduce a second 88 L/56 using late war ammunition that performed better

    • They have to introduce a clone of a gun if they want to give two tanks with the same gun different ammunition? What are they paying the engine programmers for?

      • To be fair to the programmers, I see the logic. They were probably looking for ways to reduce redundancy, because some tanks use the same guns, it would be pointless to implement 3 different gun objects for what is essentially the same gun.

        It’s not really much of an issue to introduce clones of guns. We see this with premium tanks that have the same gun as regular tanks ie, FCM 50t which uses the top 90mm DCA 45 on the ARL. You can’t have the ARL unlocking the 90 mm when the FCM 50t is bought for gold, so they’re both marked as different guns.

      • @monophonic

        As far as I understand it, most values in WoT are based on “modules”. That is, a 8,8 cm Kw.K. 36 L/56 will always have the values 132/171/44, as there is no ammunition “module”. Ammo count is just numbers telling the 8,8cm gun “item” what to do.

        But just looking at that example, I don’t see what would be wrong “gamewise”, in having an unlockable 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 mod 1944, with better values. And it would be more reasonable than these extra long guns (especially on the German tree…)

  6. So, WG, want to made this game more historical? then remove WTF E-100, and some other fantasy tanks

    And swap T57 with T18, so T18 would be arty, and T57 TD (obviously with T18 armor nerfed)

      • YES, i hate those seal clubbers in t18s at teir 2. When i was new[er, i still am new] i could not compete with t18s, even now when i need to play t2 for whatever reason i struggle to beat the t18s garanteed to be in every match. A swich to a new, and paper amour, tank would be glorious.

        • Disparition of T18-not nerf- is my dream.
          Or put it tier3, but this thing is ridiculously too strong for tier2.

  8. nice and all, but i dont think wargaming wants to get this much ‘historical accuracy’, given that is3 is one of the most popular tanks, not only on eu server…
    in their dictionary accuracy means nerf anyway

    • “in their dictionary accuracy means nerf anyway”
      Or it could mean something is overbuffed from what it’s trying to represent

      The Panzer III/IV would get the shit nerfed out of it if WG ever swung the Historical Accuracy bat in it’s direction

  11. D-25 guns on IS-series never had HEAT in service, only field guns and howitzers had. They could fire it in theory, but sights weren’t calibrated for it.

  12. For a short-mid range brawler 225mm AP pen (122mm) is better than a gun with the same caliber and pen firing APCR. And HEAT sucks

    • The thing is, BR-471D, the current gold round, is not supposed to be APCR. It was historically an AP round, so they could change that.

  13. The Tiger II is allowed to use guns that it never mounted (or could even mount with the current top turret). I don’t see why the IS-3 cannot be allowed to use the BL-9, especially since it is theoretically possible to fit it (or even the M-62T2) in the IS-3 turret, AFAIK
    .

  14. The suggestion of introducing advanced ammo would bring about chaos for the entire game’s setup. If it passes for the IS-3 then why not for everything else?
    People will want APDS rounds for the 17-20pdr’s for example and so on, even real pen values for the 105mm L7 and better ammo. Not balanced , i know , but people would still want it, non the less….if it goes for one vehicle why not for everything else?
    IS-3 seems fine as it is. The Bl-9 is a good balance/improvement piece and alternative gun. Too much changes will cause a ripple effect, which is easily avoided if WG just keeps the BL-9 going. The gun is just too convenient.

    If history buffs really want the historical IS-3 that much , then they can slug it out with the D-25T w/ prem or grind for the IS-3 in War Thunder.

  15. It’s got the looks firewpower and armor to match it and when it comes to brawling

    Armor? What armor?

    First they destroyed the armor for historical reasons and now they want to destroy it’s firepower too?

    Doesn’t matter what ammo you give the D-25T, the reason that gun is one of the worst ingame is the piss poor gun handling.

    So how about leaving the IS-3 alone? The last nerf was already painful enough. It’s already sad enough to see it get destroyed by even 175mm pen guns.

  16. My Tiger has a long 88 which although it looks good isn’t actually historical. My Panther has a long 75. I have no idea if it is historical (I guess not) but I do know that it looks absolutely ludicrous.

    What is the point of this article?

  18. At this point in the game’s life cycle it would be too much work to start making things 100% histoically accurate. They’ve missed their chance before adding too many fake UFO tanks and massively overbuffed stuff.

    Hopefully for WoT 2.0 (which I am 100% positive is in the works considering how little is being done to WoT now) they will do a better job of making tanks more historical.

  19. WG would also have to balance the stats of the gun itself. Accuracy, aiming time, dispersion on the move/rotating turret, along with other things.
    Also, the current IS3 carries ACPR as gold ammo, which means normalization, high shell velocity and no problems with spaced armor. Switch to HEAT and your start watching tracks eat your shells completely.
    In other words, not a good solution in favor of historical accuracy, which players don’t care. Daigensui, in her path to historical accuracy, already pushed to nerf the german tanks enough for no good reason. Let’s not do the same to the rest of the game, please.

  21. They could always… oh, I dunno…. put the IS-4 back to tier 9 and stick the Object-279 with the gun the IS-4 currently carries (or it’s a damn close spitting image of it) as a replacement tier 10.

    There was an old movement to have the Tiger I dropped down a tier, which would in turn drop the Tiger II, and the 4502A/B could be the same tier 8 (hull upgrade) leaving room for that Maus prototype at tier 9 – I don’t see why they couldn’t pull a similar trick lowering the IS-3 down a tier, followed by the IS-4 at tier 9, and ending in the Object-279.

    • My proposal was to delete IS-7 (wasn’t a really competitive tank anyway) and put Ob’yekt 277 instead of its’ place. That way, T-10 (aka IS-8 in game) players would find a logical successor of their tanks.

  22. Why not just use the D-25T and give the IS-3 it’s historical MM of shitting all over Japanese tankettes?
    Surely Russian kids wouldn’t mind. It’d go well with their “Lolrush dem harder tovarischs” meta. Hue.

  23. This debate finishes with one question in my mind;

    “Why don’t we have more normal and premium shell options for one gun?”

    In example, 8.8cm L/71 had HEAT rounds too ;)

  24. just thought of something could the is-8 get teh engine buff tat was mentioned ages ago in an ftr post and to give it the is-7 130mm cannon? that would be sweet! (obviously with a worse ROF)
    as far as i remember the m62 cannon used on the is-8 is an unhistorical gun so what if they gave it a real life gun? (it may not fit for some reason but i can dream)

  26. This proposition, while interesting, has no point. Too much messing for no gain: too much possible places for a screwup and guaranted whine from above average number of players (compared to other changes).

    I’d generally liked to have more ammo types. I agree that 3 ammo slots is enough in battle but it doesn’t mean you can’t sell more ammo types for these slots in garage. And without screwing balance you could just make these types attached to certain tanks (not only a gun) because of some “historical period” justification. Only, it’s too much WT probably – still, i proposed it even before WTGF was announced…