Jump to content


IS-4 ?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

VESKOBOEV123456789 #1 Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:11 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18816 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    09-29-2013
In continuation a few updates watch improve all heavy tanks 10 tier with the exception of IS-4 !!!!!!!!! WHY ??????? 

lord_chipmonk #2 Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32183 battles
  • 10,166
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostVESKOBOEV123456789, on 10 September 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

In continuation a few updates watch improve all heavy tanks 10 tier with the exception of IS-4 !!!!!!!!! WHY ??????? 

 

Because you're talking rot. 

 

IS-4 is due some buffs, WG have said as much, and it isn't the only tier 10 heavy not to have been buffed recently. 



Lord_Edge #3 Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 742
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016
It would make more sense to swap the IS-4 and the T-10, then adjust them accordingly, it's kinda stupid the order they appear in.

Dava_117 #4 Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:27 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17617 battles
  • 2,197
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostUbersonic, on 11 September 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

It would make more sense to swap the IS-4 and the T-10, then adjust them accordingly, it's kinda stupid the order they appear in.

 

What? T-10 is worst and is on the other line. If you mean ST-I, I wouldn't recomand to swap them. IS-4 has far better armour and mobility.

pepsi123 #5 Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10845 battles
  • 29
  • [BADGE] BADGE
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011

View PostUbersonic, on 11 September 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

It would make more sense to swap the IS-4 and the T-10, then adjust them accordingly, it's kinda stupid the order they appear in.

 

You know that the IS-4 used to be a tier 9? Swapping it again doesnt really make any sense.

Lord_Edge #6 Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 742
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostDava_117, on 11 September 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

What? T-10 is worst and is on the other line. If you mean ST-I, I wouldn't recomand to swap them. IS-4 has far better armour and mobility.

View Postpepsi123, on 11 September 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

You know that the IS-4 used to be a tier 9? Swapping it again doesnt really make any sense.

I think I caused some confusion here, what I meant by it making more sense to move the IS-4 down and potentially move the T-10 up, is that the IS-4 was in the real world only about a tier 7.5 tank, it was essentially an improved IS-2 that was introduced as a cheaper yet slightly inferior alternative to the IS-3 which was in production at the time (similar to the T-72 initially being introduced as a cheaper less capable alternative to the T-64).  The IS-4 never had the fictional armour it has in game nor did it have the T-10's gun which it can be equipped with instead of it's historical gun (which is obviously useless at tier 9/X hence why they gave the T-10's gun to it and the ST-I).

 

Likewise the T-10 is in real world terms a tier X tank (at least) as it's quantifiably the best HT that the USSR ever made, hence staying in backline service until Russia went bankrupt in the 90s.

 

To be clear I am not saying the T-10 is the best Soviet HT in WoT or that the IS-4 is worse than the IS-3 in WoT, just explaining how it worked in the real world and hence why it's confusing to see the two HT lines organised in such a jumbled up fictional way.


Edited by Ubersonic, 11 September 2017 - 11:52 PM.


Homer_J #7 Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27094 battles
  • 27,749
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostUbersonic, on 11 September 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

I think I caused some confusion here, what I meant by it making more sense to move the IS-4 down 

You mean back to where it used to be?

 

It was a great tier 9, some say ludicrously overpowered even.

 

Quote

The IS-4 never had the fictional armour it has in game

IIRC the armour is (or was) correct, at least according to diagrams I've seen.

 

And IIRC it never made it into production.


Edited by Homer_J, 12 September 2017 - 01:34 AM.


Aikl #8 Posted 12 September 2017 - 02:08 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,049
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 12 September 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

(...)

Quote

The IS-4 never had the fictional armour it has in game

IIRC the armour is (or was) correct, at least according to diagrams I've seen.

 

And IIRC it never made it into production.

 

They supposedly made 250 from 1947 or so, but it wasn't exactly in active service. It was sent to some remote part of Russia, might have seen use if the Soviets had intervened in the Korean war. Heavy tanks fell out of favour with the concept of the main battle tank, not unlike how the KV-1 was abandoned. Hard to tell exactly why the Soviets even produced the IS-4, let alone far larger numbers of the T-10, but realistically it's probably because it sounded cool to a certain moustached fellow.

 

Armor seems to be correct, except the upper part of the engine deck (it's 120mm in-game):

 


Edited by Aikl, 12 September 2017 - 02:14 AM.


Lord_Edge #9 Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 742
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostHomer_J, on 12 September 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

IIRC it never made it into production.

The IS-6/7 never made it into production but the IS-4 was produced in parallel with the IS-3, it was a cheaper/inferior option based off the IS-2.  The projects was cancelled after around 250 were made as it never lived up to expectations and so there was no point wasting resources on it that could be used on IS-3s or other tanks.

 

 

View PostAikl, on 12 September 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:

Hard to tell exactly why the Soviets even produced the IS-4, let alone far larger numbers of the T-10, but realistically it's probably because it sounded cool to a certain moustached fellow.

The IS-4 was envisaged as a cheaper alternative to the IS-3, less capable but not crippling so (in theory, the project was cancelled due to under performance after all).  They did the same thing with the T-72 (originally introduced as a cheaper less capable but easier to produce alternative to the T-64).

 

The T-10 was designed/produced in parallel with the T-54 as a competing methodology, whereas the T-54 followed on from the MBT design introduced with the Centurion which called for a medium tank with the armor of a heavy tank and maneuverability of a light tank, the T-10 route was supposed to be a heavy tank with the maneuverability of a medium tank.  Obviously as history attests the MBT design proved more capable hence all countries using them now, but the medium heavy design did have it's merits and so many T-10s were built, upgraded and kept in service throughout the life of the USSR, being relegated to backline service by the 70's.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users