TheMostComfortableTanker

Object 252: I've lost count of how many tier 8 heavy premiums the USSR gets now

111 posts in this topic

These days I just leave it for other people to deal with, but the armor on this is too silly for me to not make a thread.  If I've not gotten too out of touch with WoT, this armor wouldn't be too out of place on a proper tier 10 heavy.

NqeFffU.png

 

I think when we first saw this, it only had a 90mm upper plate or something.  Basically a weaker T-10 hull with an IS-6 turret and a stronger 122mm.  Times have changed.

Xcni7ib.png

It should be noted that I'm going off of line of sight thickness, not effective.  I think the turret side was supposed to say 40°, but oh well.

Even the flanks are well sloped.  The upper side hull is like the front of a Type 59 while the upper rear is the same, but 90mm thick instead of 100mm.  The turret at the flat spots surrounding the mantlet are roughly 240mm-250mm LoS, though the lower half is a bit tougher.  Mantlet is 240mm thick with pretty much nothing behind it.  The 250mm part of the mantlet is the little circle around the gun.

While it does have spaced side armor, that's probably more a liability than advantage in a good few cases.  Though it's a small target, what's behind it is a very sloped bit of 30mm armor.  It's a Soviet tank though, so most others won't be able to overmatch there on level ground.

FuTeD1X.png

X9OjDol.png

 

 

Current stats:

PROTECTION
Level

8
Health 1 500
Hull armor 130 / 100 / 90
Turret armor 250 / 150 / 100

 
GUN
Damage

440/440/530
Penetration
Shell speed
225 / 265 / 68
1000/1250/700
Elevation -6°/+20°
Rate of fire 3.75
Accuracy 0.44
Aim time
Dispersion
   Turret
   Straight line
   Hull traverse
Turret traverse speed
3.2

0.12
0.24
0.24
24

 
VISION
View range

350
Invisibility
 moving 0.061
 still 0.122
 camouflage bonus 0.02
 camouflage net bonus 0.05
 fire penalty 0.183
Signal range 440

 
MOBILITY
Speed limit
Weight

35/14
51 500
Horsepower 700
Power/Weight
Traverse speed
Terrain resistance
   Hard
   Average
   Soft
13.6
30

1.2
1.5
2.3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another M4 49 but with no gun dep and a bigger gun this time. It won't be able to sidescrape reliably but it doesn't matter since it can outtrade all T8s and most T9s. It's probably going to be a blend of IS-3A and the 49.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it funny that besides the cupolas, the front "weakspots" are already tougher than what most things that tier can pen with AP.  GJ WG.  The armor is absolutely silly and the gun is going to really hurt what it hits, but it's got about the same DPM as the Lowe with trash accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

WG obviously didn't learn from the debacle that was the T-22...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FreddBoy said:

Lol.

WG obviously didn't learn from the debacle that was the T-22...

yeah they did , they remember to charge for it this time :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheMostComfortableTanker said:

snip

Your UFP los is off, IS7 has 150mm at 60 / 35 or 63 / 30 deg (or so) making the combined angle 65-66 deg, (so 61 effective), and the armor ~310mm head on vs AP (vs APCR its 340 and vs HEAT ~370

If this thing has the exact same angles, it will be ~268mm effective. with one addional remarks:

  • One screen its listed as 63 deg, if that is the combined angle, the UFP is only ~250mm effective

So its good, but nothing that extreme

(400 los would be more as IS7, while the armor is thinner, that seems exceptional unlikely...)

5 hours ago, leggasiini said:

That UFP LOOOLLL

wtf WG

Neah, the 400 is wrong, IS7 doesnt even 400mm vs HEAT, and thats with 150mm armor and not 130

ps: T-10 has around ~235-245mm eff UFP, with 65 deg and 120mm, if this thing gets 63 deg and 130mm, its around T-10 strong,

EDIT: after further looking the stats, it does (still) seem an interesting tank, it might also be very good in fighting IS3`s, it can outtrade them, and its armor will bounce IS3 shells, stuff like the KV4 and KT should kill 252 relative easy though, they have much more dpm / faster reload, so as long as you can trade 2vs1 or just detrack him, he wont stand a chance (an IS3 wont be able to do that so easy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

Your UFP los is off, IS7 has 150mm at 60 / 35 or 63 / 30 deg (or so) making the combined angle 65-66 deg, (so 61 effective), and the armor ~310mm head on vs AP (vs APCR its 340 and vs HEAT ~370

If this thing has the exact same angles, it will be ~268mm effective. with one addional remarks:

  • One screen its listed as 63 deg, if that is the combined angle, the UFP is only ~250mm effective

So its good, but nothing that extreme

(400 los would be more as IS7, while the armor is thinner, that seems exceptional unlikely...)

63° is before you factor in the pike, which is why I wrote it as "63° + pike".  While the IS-7 does have a similar angle before the pike (61°) and is 20mm thicker, the 252's pike is a lot more aggressive.  The 252's pike both starts sooner and ends later, relative to the rest of the tank.  To compare this to something else, the 112's UFP is only 80% the thickness of the KT's UFP, but the angles make the 112 end up 40% thicker LoS than the KT (230 vs 330).  Also, it's worth remembering that the effectiveness of sloped armor increases exponetially as the angle improves, so even 60° vs 65° is a big difference.
e1WjI4H.pngFX5drKA.png

(size not to scale)

I was being harsh on the tank when I wrote ~400mm LoS.  That's what I got near the center of the UFP, where the effective angle headon is the weakest.  Nearer the far edges of the UFP, it gets up to 500mm LoS.  Of course, none of this matters much when the pike itself is already autobounce for AP and APCR most of the time.  The angle in practice obviously may be a little less since it's a sqaut tank, and I might not have been looking at it perfectly head on.

So yes, it does have a stronger UFP than the IS-7 by a decent degree.  It's 20mm thinner, but sloped so much more that the strongest point on the IS-7's UFP is weaker than the weakest point on the 252.  The reason I made the thread is because the UFP is this strong, you nerd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tupinambis said:

Hopefully it just ends up like the kirovets where they just never actually bother making it available

K4WWWbJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheMostComfortableTanker said:

63° is before you factor in the pike, which is why I wrote it as "63° + pike".  While the IS-7 does have a similar angle before the pike (61°) and is 20mm thicker, the 252's pike is a lot more aggressive.  The 252's pike both starts sooner and ends later, relative to the rest of the tank.  To compare this to something else, the 112's UFP is only 80% the thickness of the KT's UFP, but the angles make the 112 end up 40% thicker LoS than the KT (230 vs 330).  Also, it's worth remembering that the effectiveness of sloped armor increases exponetially as the angle improves, so even 60° vs 65° is a big difference.
e1WjI4H.pngFX5drKA.png

(size not to scale)

I was being harsh on the tank when I wrote ~400mm LoS.  That's what I got near the center of the UFP, where the effective angle headon is the weakest.  Nearer the far edges of the UFP, it gets up to 500mm LoS.  Of course, none of this matters much when the pike itself is already autobounce for AP and APCR most of the time.  The angle in practice obviously may be a little less since it's a sqaut tank, and I might not have been looking at it perfectly head on.

So yes, it does have a stronger UFP than the IS-7 by a decent degree.  It's 20mm thinner, but sloped so much more that the strongest point on the IS-7's UFP is weaker than the weakest point on the 252.  The reason I made the thread is because the UFP is this strong, you nerd.

I'm not sure if the insanely steep pike will actually work in its favour. For example, the 110 has a UFP that's supposed to be about 250 effective, but the slightest bit of angling renders it useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lavawing said:

I'm not sure if the insanely steep pike will actually work in its favour. For example, the 110 has a UFP that's supposed to be about 250 effective, but the slightest bit of angling renders it useless.

A big reason for that is the 110's UFP is only at 54°, so almost 10° less sloped than the 252.  The 110 also has the issue of the UFP getting 20mm thinner near the far edges.  In short, the 110's front hull is a little thinner and much less sloped.  

Before you consider the pike on the 110, it's 170mm and 204mm LoS for the 100mm and 120mm zones respectively.  With the 252 before considering the pike any, the UFP is 286mm LoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this looks pretty good balance wise since it has both cupolas and LFP as a weak spot, so its not idiot proof.... and it trades alpha for DPM, which is fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheMostComfortableTanker said:

So yes, it does have a stronger UFP than the IS-7 by a decent degree.

Needs more armor. :serb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ickus said:

Needs more armor. :serb:

I suppose it's one way to make it stand out from the rest of the Soviet tier 8 premium heavies :trump:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, TheMostComfortableTanker said:

63° is before you factor in the pike, which is why I wrote it as "63° + pike".  While the IS-7 does have a similar angle before the pike (61°) and is 20mm thicker, the 252's pike is a lot more aggressive.  The 252's pike both starts sooner and ends later, relative to the rest of the tank.  To compare this to something else, the 112's UFP is only 80% the thickness of the KT's UFP, but the angles make the 112 end up 40% thicker LoS than the KT (230 vs 330).  Also, it's worth remembering that the effectiveness of sloped armor increases exponetially as the angle improves, so even 60° vs 65° is a big difference.
e1WjI4H.pngFX5drKA.png

(size not to scale)

I was being harsh on the tank when I wrote ~400mm LoS.  That's what I got near the center of the UFP, where the effective angle headon is the weakest.  Nearer the far edges of the UFP, it gets up to 500mm LoS.  Of course, none of this matters much when the pike itself is already autobounce for AP and APCR most of the time.  The angle in practice obviously may be a little less since it's a sqaut tank, and I might not have been looking at it perfectly head on.

So yes, it does have a stronger UFP than the IS-7 by a decent degree.  It's 20mm thinner, but sloped so much more that the strongest point on the IS-7's UFP is weaker than the weakest point on the 252.  The reason I made the thread is because the UFP is this strong, you nerd.

If the pike is steeper as IS7, then its indeed stronger, nice one WG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the UFP is doesn't really matter that much, it's the LFP that worries me, 218 effective, is too good.

Make that 180 effective and the tank should be ok, will be able to bully lower tiers not using premium but vulnerable to most same tier tanks, similar to IS7 LFP. 

Though that side armour is BS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tajj7 said:

What the UFP is doesn't really matter that much, it's the LFP that worries me, 218 effective, is too good.

Make that 180 effective and the tank should be ok, will be able to bully lower tiers not using premium but vulnerable to most same tier tanks, similar to IS7 LFP. 

Though that side armour is BS. 

That's just LoS thickness, so it's only 218mm vs HEAT.  Against AP it's 198mm and against APCR it's 209mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess one thing to keep in mind is we've already got the 112 at tier 8 with similar armor.  The 112's got a lower plate that's just a thick, but 5° less sloped.  The upper plate on the 252 is so overkill that you're really only going to see a difference between the two when you start seeing IS-3 and M26 gold ammo.  Likewise, you're only going to realize that the 252 has a weaker turret when those same guns are shooting it.  Both have 150mm cupolas as well, though I think the ones on the 112 would be easier to hit.

The big issue is that while there may not be too huge of a difference with all of that, the 112 pays more for that front armor than the 252.  While the 112 is a little more mobile, spends less time reloading (though with only ~100 more dpm), and I guess has +30m view range if that matters, the 252 wins by larger margins in more important areas.  Its side and rear armor actually matter (hull rear is the same as a T-44 front more or less), the 252 has great pen instead of shit pen, and packs an even bigger punch.  Funny enough, the 252 also has a slight edge when it comes to gun handling.

33 minutes ago, canadiantrex said:

Is it actually gonna go for sale or be another bullshit mission or campaign tank?

I think we'll have to wait and see on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.