KV 85 for soviets , tier 3

[SK4M3R]

@Admiral_Wenli

Though ngl the T-28E is far better than the T-50 anyway for AT and AP regardless.

I gave the T28E a try due to your recommendation and I have to say I regret it, it seems way worse in almost every aspect, its armor is thin to the point of been useless even in its improved variant, it is quite slow compared to the T50, the short L-10 76mm still fails to penetrate armored opponents pretty much at the same level of the 45mm , and it is too tall, making it really easy to spot. its only advantages are the extra MGs and HE explosion radius, which is pointless as the T50 can fill the same role to nearly the same extent without incurring in the same penalties.

If anything it served as a history lesson of why the soviets abandon the design so early in the war, it is a WW1 mentality design of an infantry tank, which was obsolete by the start of the war.

finally I tested its armor against tier 1 tanks after seen how easily it was defeated in a match, just to find out that the 37mm is good enough to kill the T28E variant from any angle without much effort and that the tier 1 75/32 M41 outperforms the T28E in penetration and armor, while keeping similar HE performance, which makes me question more the tier 2 rating of the T28E

[Admiral_Wenli]

In which case I can only say you were using it wrong, the T-28E excels in survivability and its ability to lay down heavy fire, its armour is AT rifle immune which is very important at its BR, and can maybe tank a few hits. For context you have all round 50mm protection on it, about on par with the effective thickness of the armour on the T-50.

You have great suppression ability in the T-28E, between your amazing HE and MGs, you can completely shut down any point. Against tanks, you can one shot literally anything you can face with great ease, you have a fast reload, and can very easily tank even 75mm rounds because they get lodged in the skulls of your MG gunners. This is without even mentioning the commander sight which is kinda cracked how good it is, all the while you have solid mobility.

As for the 75 M41, its also a great tank, its the best german tank at BR1. However the lack of a turret is a major downside. The T-28E, has a turret, has far more survivability, has more all round armour, hence making it immune to AT rifles which are prolific at its BR, has a better “FCS”, has far better MG’s, namely by having MG’s.

The T-28 was an abandoned design by war start, but that can more be dated back to how the KV-1 was replacing it, of which ofc it was a flat upgrade on all accounts, pun intended.

The fact you question the BR rating of the T-28E is of serious concern to me, how the fuck were you using it? Were you just bum rushing into the wall of the point or? Your best off sitting behind the infantry line, suppressing windows while the infantry advance all the while keeping an eye out on the avenues of approach for german tanks, as long as you can see them, you will win even if they get the first shot off, at least 90% of the time.

The exception is the Pz3N, a tank that I could talk about in length, however just shoot for the turret ring on it, its a one shot and still very very easy to hit, that or if your perpendicular to it, just shoot the hull. Oddly enough, the Pz3N is more of a threat to you than the Pz4 J, the J can be one shot just about anywhere near its hull, just avoid the turret because thats not a guaranteed one shot.

[Dregomz]

No thanks we don’t need yet another almost impenetrable to the German cannons tank for the soviets you are already ultra overpowered at BR3 and you want more? Current KV-1’s armor is overperforming and need to be nerfed first.

[Dregomz]

Mate T-50 armor got nerfed to it’s realistic values now it’s paper thin like T-28E. I wish KV-1 turrets armor would also get nerfed in thickness to be more realistic as irl against 5cm KwK39 and 7,5cm Pak40

[SK4M3R]

@Admiral_Wenli

. For context you have all round 50mm protection on it, about on par with the effective thickness of the armour on the T-50.

In contrast with a T50:

With the weak spots been:
in between

All of those test conducted with a 37mm gun, the T50 is not impregnable but it is far better armored than the T28E, which in its stronger points it has around 30mm of effective armor in a nearly straight angle. (look at the effective thickness)

With some truly bad weak spots:

compare that to a T50:

on its front a 37mm plate at a 45 degree slope give an effective 52 mm of armor at the front with 45mm of effective side armor due to its lesser 45 degree slope

its turret weak spot has an effective armor of 37-42 mm of armor. giving it an edge on the T28 in survivability.

[SK4M3R]

you mean a king tiger? or in BR 2 the Panzer III N?

[SK4M3R]

a quick wiki search shows the following:

" The few T-50s available were deployed on the Leningrad front. Few in-service photos survived and not much is known of their combat record. One uparmored T-50 was captured by Finnish forces and was used by them in 1944. This unit survived the war and is now on display at the Parola tank museum ."

" There were two variants; a basic model and an up-armored model. Just prior to the German invasion of the USSR, many Soviet tanks had their armor reinforced with welded or bolted add-on plates. Some Kliment Voroshilov heavy tanks, T-28 medium tanks and T-26 light tanks received add-on armor fittings. A few T-50s also received these add-ons. This up-armored variant is recognizable by the bolt heads that hold the armor added to the turret sides and hull front. The normal T-50 is a very ‘clean’ looking vehicle by comparison. The uparmored T-50 had 57 mm of armor at its thickest points."

also I found this photo in the wiki page of the finish museum:

(See that it clearly has armor plates armor added on top of its original 37mm)

given the previously disclosed information the T50 that we should have in the game should be the one that has 20mm more of added armor as it was the one that saw combat during the war. I mean even the finish have one of the up armored ones captured in combat, but lack any standard versions.

(jokes aside it would be nice to have the up armored variant as one tank filling the soviet tank tree deficit, but it would be better if we have the SU-76M )

Additional links:

T-50 tank

[Darenius1]

@SK4M3R

or in BR 2 the Panzer III N?

If you got half a brain you can just shoot the turret where even the 25mm AA gun on a truck can pen…
Allied players are something special when they say that the 3N is immortal.

[Darenius1]

The true armor of the T28 is the troll armor given by the mg turrets and just the amount of the crew needed to kill.
While the T-50 might be better protected against BR 1 tanks the T-28 has even a decent chance to survive even the BR 3 tanks thanks to the turrets (even if it isnt fool proof).
But the T-50 would be 100% dead against those.
Something like the 3 N HEAT eats the T-50 for breakfast but might get trolled a few times by the T-28 armor.

[Dregomz]

King Tiger dies in a single shot from 100mm/122mm or a few of panzerfausts, Panzer 3N gets easily penned and destroyed by 76mm of the Soviets.

[SK4M3R]

yes, but if you have no brain you can use late war HEAT ammo to cheese the entire Tier before they can aim for the small weak spots

[Admiral_Wenli]

Youve confused armour and survivability as the same thing, youve also missed the fact that there is multiple layers of armour on the T-28E.

Hence even on the side, there is an effective thickness of 50mm RHA @ 0 degrees, hence it is on par with the T-50’s

As for survivability, because the crew of the T-28E is two larger and in separate compartments, its quite hard for you to be one shot, and near impossible if you hide the weakspot you mentioned, which mind you is very easy to do on just about any map as you can poke your head over most cover available to tanks.

So yes I am right in those regards, and this isnt to even to begin to touch on the difference in firepower offered, and the sheer advantage of the commanders periscope.

[SK4M3R]

you should test that against gray zone campers in most narrow maps, literaly the solution is using planes, for it isnt very feasable at all, if we had broader maps that allow flanking that would be true, still is a matter of proper tiers for tanks, not if they are invincible or not, as all tanks can be destroyed.

[Admiral_Wenli]

Now if we had something to the effect of the T-50 “E” in game, sure thats worth comparing, however we dont. Not to mention if anyone could get the T-50 “E”, it would only be the Finnish as it was a Finnish modification.

[SK4M3R]

as far as I read that was a soviet T50 with added armor that was captured by the Finnish, not a finish version of the tank.

[Admiral_Wenli]

I mean in the article itself you linked, it says its a Finnish modification made in a Finnish repair shop. The source for that comes from a russian source authored by Maxim Kolomyets.

I did read however there is an uparmoured soviet design for the T-50, however there is no source to that, and I wonder if it is confused with the T-126 instead.

[SK4M3R]

@Admiral_Wenli

Hence even on the side, there is an effective thickness of 50mm RHA @ 0 degrees, hence it is on par with the T-50’s

the game disagrees with that statement, it seems it tanks the turret at a 30mm total armor rather than 50mm as you are thinking, but 50mm of turret armor for such an early war overloaded tank seems too much to handle, maybe they just add 10mm and the total armor is 30mm?, honestly I haven’t found a clear answer about that added armor, and total armor values

(this is with a 37mm gun)

[SK4M3R]

that is a good question, sadly it seems that not much information about the T-50s that saw combat survived the war, so we would have to dig deeper to learn about them.

BTW I doubt they are the same tank for the T-126 had a 45mm armor thickness, and they state that the armor was 57mm thick, which sounds like some soviet soldier added 20mm of armor on top of what it already has.

[Admiral_Wenli]

It states there was two variants of the T-126, one with 45 and one with 57, so thats up in the air as well, like any soviet era records, its fucking shit.

As for the uparmouring, no its 50mm, its a bit surprising to me too when I first found out, soviet uparmouring is a bit mental sometimes. But it is worth remembering this was uparmouring the turret to be effective vs the smaller ISGs and 20mm Solothurn AT rifle the fins were using. Im sure the upgrades mounted were non standard, however the model in WT and the model in enlisted are both calculated at 50mm effective.

You forget the 37mm was only called a doorknocker because quite how thick the armour on the likes of the B1, Matilda, KV-1 and T-34 were. Otherwise its quite a good gun in its own purview, only beat out by the 2pdr at the time. And despite that, point blank on the side of the T-28E, it is only just about penetrating.

[SK4M3R]

yeah, I used the same gun to keep the the pen tests fair for both tanks, here we go with a 50mm,

with the 50mm it is posible to penetrate at short range.

but any slight angle does protect the t50 unlike the T28E.