State of Heavies

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 22:54 PMIncendiaryRounds

Wrong. The secondary cannon is more than enough to penetrate a p4 at close and medium range. When you're flanking a KV8 with a p4, the rear of the p4 is also exposed to the KV8 most of the time, hence the secondary cannon is getting a decent # of rear armor shots.

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:01 PMSkysTheLimit

LOL I said it poses no threat, not that it can't damage the p4. The secondary gun is terrible, if you lose your p4 to that you have no one to blame but yourself

If a t34 gets lost to a brumbarr it should be just as embarrassed. Do you have point?

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 22:54 PMIncendiaryRounds

Wrong. The secondary cannon is more than enough to penetrate a p4 at close and medium range.

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:08 PMSkysTheLimit

An absolute lie btw. The 45mm has 80 penetration at midrange. P4 has 180 armor, 230 at vet2. More than enough = <50%???

But this misses the point. I have already said they should also nerf rear armor of KVs and Churchill....

Do you have a point?

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:30 PMIncendiaryRounds

When you're flanking a tank, is the flanking tank also exposing its rear to the enemy tank? Of course.

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:33 PMSkysTheLimit

Uhhh no? It's front or side most likely. How often do you see 2 tanks who's butts are facing each other for more than a second? Don't think I've ever seen that

You would see the rear as the tank is driving away AFTER a flank. Not before...

Again, you're still ignoring the main point, which has nothing to do with this. I don't think ANY of these tanks should be deflecting rear shots. It's not about any of these specific examples...

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:54 PMIncendiaryRounds

If a p4 is to reliably flank a KV8 it's supposed to get behind the KV8. When the KV8 realizes it's being flanked, it's supposed to reverse. Both tank's cannons will be pointed each other's rear armor.

Jump back to quoted post18 Jan 2020, 23:30 PMIncendiaryRounds

So my point is that YOU'RE BEING BIASED, AS USUAL saying the KV8 is defenseless vs p4.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2020, 02:33 AMthedarkarmadillo

I sincerely don't think that a max range shot on the ass of a kv-1 should be a guaranteed pen for a p4, but point blank (or a bit out) should be, like so for say a t34/tiger.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2020, 05:45 AMelchino7

Rear could be lowered, if it was not 50% of the hitbox of the tank.

Vehicles with low range or less threatening guns put on it, there's less need of a change.
I can see the current KV2 lose some armor due to how the unit was reworked to be.
On the fence with KV1-KV8-Churchill.


IF it was me, i'll rather have mediums have a higher point blank (>5 range) penetration while keeping the current values from 5 onward.