Jump to content


Time to buff the 122mm


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Zodiac1960s #1 Posted 16 July 2017 - 09:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37205 battles
  • 938
  • [VOMIT] VOMIT
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

After the resent changes to mm. Preferential mm have been slightly nerfed. I think it's time to buff the good old 122 mm to 190-200 penetration. The rest of the stats are still garbage.  With never beast like the Defender etc, I see no reason not to.

 

Might leave the penetration as is on Tier seven and below. 


Edited by Blind_Hate, 16 July 2017 - 09:33 AM.


Goldshock #2 Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 21047 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
Ok buff Pen and lower the alpha to.... 240?

Balc0ra #3 Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64272 battles
  • 15,377
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
You're not the first to suggest it, even before the MM changes. As we get topics like this weekly "less about the KV-5 oddly enough". WG knows, and they will at least buff the IS-6 etc in the new two patches... or so they say. But as to what? Time will tell.

HundeWurst #4 Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:57 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,277
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

There are already 2 tanks with that 122 mm gun you are talking about but they have access to different ammo.

 

Give these tanks the 221mm penetration APCR the IS5 and the IS3a get. That should take care of that problem for good.



Balc0ra #5 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:04 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64272 battles
  • 15,377
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostWunderWurst, on 16 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

There are already 2 tanks with that 122 mm gun you are talking about but they have access to different ammo.

 

Give these tanks the 221mm penetration APCR the IS5 and the IS3a get. That should take care of that problem for good.

 

Indeed it would fix it. But would that not be a tad overkill considering they have pref MM as well?

Gvozdika #6 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:37 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38155 battles
  • 550
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

WG haven't really touched the 122mm (well it's Chinese copy-paste equivalent) on the T-34-3 in the recently leaked buffs - instead buffing the aim-time. Instead they've up-armoured the tank - whether this works remains to be seen. However a mobile medium compared to a heavy with the same gun is a different kettle of fish.

 

They could up the regular AP pen on the IS-6 / WZ-111 / 112 to IS-3A levels - or they could give them premium rounds which are more effective (230-240 APCR). The current APCR 217mm is virtually useless vs. Defenders, VKPs, Chryslers, etc. and the Chinese HEAT is so comically slow that your intended victim virtually has time to move out of the way before it hits them. Even when it hits - it isn't reliable for penetrating anything other than a dead flat surface.

 

Compared to other pref MM tanks - the Super-pershing has pretty good premium ammo - so it doesn't suffer quite so much when up against strong opposition. It isn't overpowered by any stretch of the imagination - even after the buff to regular AP (on top of keeping it's decent premium shells).

 



AliceUnchained #7 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:43 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,783
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Only acceptable if the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gets buffed to 160 - 165 mm penetration, the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 to 180 - 185 mm penetration and damage increased to 150 - 170, the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 to 220 - 225 mm penetration, and the 10.5 cm KwK 46 L/68 to 240 - 245 mm penetration and damage increase to at least 360 average (although it really should get the same damage as the shorter barreled medium 10.5 cm guns, so 390 average). Then we can talk. 

 

For the Tier VI and VII Soviets the 122 mm really should retain it's somewhat actual performance, around 165 - 175 mm penetration. It's the 100 mm D10 which should see a penetration buff, as it had better anti-tank performance than the 122 mm D25.



Balc0ra #8 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:56 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64272 battles
  • 15,377
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostGvozdika, on 16 July 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

WG haven't really touched the 122mm (well it's Chinese copy-paste equivalent) on the T-34-3 in the recently leaked buffs - instead buffing the aim-time. Instead they've up-armoured the tank - whether this works remains to be seen. However a mobile medium compared to a heavy with the same gun is a different kettle of fish.

 

This is what I'm skeptical about. They have only mentioned the IS-6 "and the KV-5" so far that they will be buffed soon. Not the WZ-111 or 112 on the Chinese side. But not said what they want to do with them. And I hope they just don't say "here it's more mobile now, with a faster aim time and less dispersion" and call it a day. Considering how their recent buffs have been that is on tanks that struggle the same way.

HundeWurst #9 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:10 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,277
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 July 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

 

Indeed it would fix it. But would that not be a tad overkill considering they have pref MM as well?

 

Why would that be?

These tanks were designed around pnuishing lower tiers , 7 and 6 in particular. The new mm denies them this option. You will hardly ever see tier 6 and only rarely tier 7.

So what has to be done. These tanks now need the capability to fight tier 8 without any problems and tier 9 to a bit lesser extend.

While I would have agreed that 221 would have been an overkill in the past, these days its required to deal with the more heavily armored tanks on tier 8 (tier 9 never really changed so there is that).

 

So yeah I think 221mm penetration with APCR, which would roughly equal 215 AP should be alright. These tanks could now at least deal with tier 8 propperly, and even tier 9.

Players would be able again to make plenty of credits with these tanks. Something they most like bought them for in the first place.


Edited by WunderWurst, 16 July 2017 - 12:11 PM.


Gvozdika #10 Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38155 battles
  • 550
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 16 July 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Only acceptable if the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gets buffed to 160 - 165 mm penetration, the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 to 180 - 185 mm penetration and damage increased to 150 - 170, the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 to 220 - 225 mm penetration, and the 10.5 cm KwK 46 L/68 to 240 - 245 mm penetration and damage increase to at least 360 average (although it really should get the same damage as the shorter barreled medium 10.5 cm guns, so 390 average). Then we can talk. 

 

For the Tier VI and VII Soviets the 122 mm really should retain it's somewhat actual performance, around 165 - 175 mm penetration. It's the 100 mm D10 which should see a penetration buff, as it had better anti-tank performance than the 122 mm D25.

 

​I wouldn't say no to any of that. WG's insistence on whipping out Russian Archive effective-penetration tables (which are of course infallible... ) and using them as the arbiter of gun performance has always been a bit flakey / inconsistent.

 

Look how long it took for WG to budge on the L70 7.5cm - they kept it at 135mm for donkeys before (begrudgingly and quietly) giving it a mild boost to 150mm. I think the RU player-base would be kicking and screaming if either of the 88s was buffed - since it would give a whole swathe of German tanks a boost in gun performance. The Tiger II would potentially be competitive again. It would be the end of life as we know it.....



Zodiac1960s #11 Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37205 battles
  • 938
  • [VOMIT] VOMIT
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostGoldshock, on 16 July 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

Ok buff Pen and lower the alpha to.... 240?

But 440 is ok on the Defender?



Zodiac1960s #12 Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37205 battles
  • 938
  • [VOMIT] VOMIT
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 16 July 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

There are already 2 tanks with that 122 mm gun you are talking about but they have access to different ammo.

 

Give these tanks the 221mm penetration APCR the IS5 and the IS3a get. That should take care of that problem for good.

That would be too much for my taste. 195-205. But I see your point.  



AliceUnchained #13 Posted 16 July 2017 - 02:21 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,783
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostGvozdika, on 16 July 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

 

​I wouldn't say no to any of that. WG's insistence on whipping out Russian Archive effective-penetration tables (which are of course infallible... ) and using them as the arbiter of gun performance has always been a bit flakey / inconsistent.

 

Look how long it took for WG to budge on the L70 7.5cm - they kept it at 135mm for donkeys before (begrudgingly and quietly) giving it a mild boost to 150mm. I think the RU player-base would be kicking and screaming if either of the 88s was buffed - since it would give a whole swathe of German tanks a boost in gun performance. The Tiger II would potentially be competitive again. It would be the end of life as we know it.....

 

Heh, if you're referring to that table our mighty Overlord whipped up years ago: That one isn't even a table with penetration figures obtained through testing. It's calculated using De Marre and basically is the performance you could expect when the German guns involved would be firing Soviet quality ammunition. 

 

Even with the buffs to the Kwk 36 and KwK 42, their penetration performance still is too low using WoT criteria. And it's not even inconsistent, as basically all well known German WW II (anti-)tank guns suffer from this. For whatever reason. The 135 average damage for the L/70 is an utter joke (and L/100 as well, but that gun is just ridiculous and should be removed), as similar caliber and Tier guns already were given 150 average damage and recently even 170 average damage. Yet the KwK 42 L/70 is still at 135... 



Gkirmathal #14 Posted 16 July 2017 - 02:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,492
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

Wouldn't this be easily be fixed by introducing more standard ammo types on each tier? As much as I do not like WFGF, the ability to research ammo types for the same gun could be added to Wot and enable the same 122mm to use (via research) a more modern round to balance it out on that tier. Though it would again add an extra layer of grinding and I dunno if that is appreciated.


 



HundeWurst #15 Posted 16 July 2017 - 03:57 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,277
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostBlind_Hate, on 16 July 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

That would be too much for my taste. 195-205. But I see your point.  

 

That wouldnt change a lot. YOu still could not reliable engage any of the newer of buffed tanks. If you want to have a buff make it meaningfull.

Buff by only that little would basically be the same thing like the "nerf" of the Type 5 heavy. Entirely meaningless.



Zodiac1960s #16 Posted 16 July 2017 - 04:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37205 battles
  • 938
  • [VOMIT] VOMIT
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 16 July 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

 

That wouldnt change a lot. YOu still could not reliable engage any of the newer of buffed tanks. If you want to have a buff make it meaningfull.

Buff by only that little would basically be the same thing like the "nerf" of the Type 5 heavy. Entirely meaningless.

From 175 to 205 would be quite the buff. I don't struggle with guns over 190. 200+ is fine. Especially if they gave it better premium shells too. 258 APCR for example.



HundeWurst #17 Posted 16 July 2017 - 04:47 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,277
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostBlind_Hate, on 16 July 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

From 175 to 205 would be quite the buff. I don't struggle with guns over 190. 200+ is fine. Especially if they gave it better premium shells too. 258 APCR for example.

 

But I dont want to spam premium to get something done in my premium tanks. I want to use regular ammo. And 200 pen does not cut it when it comes to all the buffed and newer tanks.

Thrael7 #18 Posted 16 July 2017 - 05:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22983 battles
  • 1,911
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostWunderWurst, on 16 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

But I dont want to spam premium to get something done in my premium tanks.

 

 

If this is not contained right now we might see some of ours(TDU-WJDE) saying these things...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users