Proposed changes To ST-I armor for 9.21 Test V.2

Pics will be posted in pairs current test sever first then the proposed changes.

Source WoT Express.

Liked it? Take a second to support jerryatrick53 on Patreon!
Proposed changes To ST-I armor for 9.21 Test V.2

20 thoughts on “Proposed changes To ST-I armor for 9.21 Test V.2

  1. Enigmaticmuffin says:

    i dont think a tiny strip of strong armor on an otherwise giant weak spot is gonna move this thing out of “worst tier 9” position

    1. SirPendrak says:

      Worst tier 9? You got to be kidding me. I have few hundrets battles with it and wr over 60% at tier IX where oponents are usually strong and cappable, while my overall wr is only 58%. Its actually more dangerous than e75.

      1. Enigmaticmuffin says:

        strong armor isn’t worth the steam off your piss if everyone just shoots the giant weak spot on the front of the hull (that can’t be angled out) which makes its snail speed even less justified. Even if you’re hull down the aim time lasting longer than the cretaceous period paired with the atrocious aim bloom on traverse despite having a turret traverse rate that the E-100 would be embarrassed to have makes the entire thing a shit sandwich. The T-10M is better by leaps and bounds barring the shitty hull armor

    2. Anonymous says:

      Terribad player spotted. The ST-I, worst tier 9 ? Hahaha good one. I’d have happily kept it with the better soft stats and HP of the IS-4 instead of getting the latter.

    1. RoadRunnerdn says:

      Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. The hull front is less angled and even with the +10mm to the front plate the cheeks are just weaker. The cupola is worse and the drivers hatch it arguable worse since you can no longer angle it without exposing another bad part of it.

      I don’t even like the new “redesigned” look of it

  2. Varia Vespasa says:

    Cuppola is weaker from anything that isnt a head-on shot.
    Main nerf is the drivers area is now significantly less sloped and thus effectively much thinner than it was.

  3. Indy_ah says:

    Old STI


    Upperglacis: around 255mm/265mm
    Lowerglacis: around 180mm/205mm
    Shoulders: around 400 mm/270mm
    Driversport: around 218mm/236mm
    Cupola: around 230-330mm

    New STI

    Upperglacis: around 235mm/255mm
    Lowerglacis: around 182mm/205mm
    Shoulders: around 375mm/260mm
    Driverport: around 225mm/220mm
    Cupola: around 240-260mm
    Cupola became bigger

    Note: Effective armorvalues against AP

    So they give the STI, the same Hull as the IS4 with 20mm less side armor and without those 30mm thick tracks on the lowerglacis.
    Also they give the STI a bigger cupola which with standard rounds is most of the time a 50/50 wether you penetrate or not (the 240mm part is rather small),
    while the old cupola was a 50/50 for premium ammunition.
    Were those armor changes so badly needed? I dont think so.
    I am ok with that new Turret and the weaker cupola, but not with the new effective hullarmor. Now you have to hide your complete hull, because many guns will now pierce through the upperglacis. Like its the case with the IS4, i guess we can be lucky that there is no big 30mm roofarmorstrip on that new STI turret.

  4. kamasdusan says:

    I would rather see that 150mm armor on the sides, then on frontal plate. It is still hard to sidescrape when that plates between sides and front are 200-220mm eff when sidesrapping. It should be similar to IS-4 that has stronger sides than front. It would be nice, especcially when those plates have grown.

  5. Indy_ah says:

    Nevermind my post before i used the old testserver model, my bad.
    The upperglacis now is back to the old armorvalues, the rest stays as i said.

  6. I like the new model and the armor buff (UFP is now 150mm and the turret armor is definetely stronger). I agree that it has evident weakspots that will nullify these advantages in actual fights: cupola and LFP. All in all, I hope they are going to rework the whole line (ST-II anybody?)

  7. MozzaBurger says:

    I’m skeptical about the new cupola : bigger and much less angled. It’s one of the most important changes playstyle-wise and no armor value for it ? Come on.

  8. sippi81 says:

    why the drivers port and the copoula have to be changed anyways?
    both are weaker now do the st 1 need a nerf?
    I doubt it armor is all it has actually and its already a pretty bad tank
    no need to introduce new weak spots for this tank
    take over the copoula and drivers port and add a little bit more armor for example some more slopings on turret side and sidearmor this tank deserves a buff because the KV 4 is the biggest peace of crap and if you want anybody to grind through that give at least something interesting at tier 9

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well i like the Tiger 1. And its armor ist even on Tier 6 shit. So i suggest we buff the frontal armor to 200m and sides to 150 because it is hard to sidescrape and to go on an infight against the obj. 704. soooo what i am trying to tell you all. WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO BUFF RUSSIAN OP MONGO TANKS EVEN MORE FOR **** SAKE?????
    The whole german tree is bullshit of balancing. Still historical correct Transmission in the front so every god damn hit in the front blows the engine. Tiger 2 bullshit Overall armor, Speed and an Alpha dmg Tier 6 t150 already has. Leopard pta and 1. if a Player spots you your ammorack just instant gets taken and out. if arty misses you by 200miles you got 900000000 damage. no turret to work with and the gun is just as crap as the rest of These tanks. on paper they are pretty good but on the map i have more ammo waste than a drugged jar head on his m16.

    so maybe you all should less complain about your nuke safe fortresses and try some german. then you know hat real pain is.

Leave a Reply