World of Tanks Supertest News: The Double-Barreled Vehicle Is Entering the Supertest

Note: The tank’s name is Object 703 II

We are especially interested in the gameplay concept, not so much in the dummy vehicle itself. None of this vehicle’s characteristics should be taken seriously. It will give all of you (and us) an insight into what a double-barreled tank could look and play like in World of Tanks.

So, let’s break the ice and take a look at the first-ever vehicle with two guns (no, Franken and Stein don’t count) as well as its stats.

0 thoughts on “World of Tanks Supertest News: The Double-Barreled Vehicle Is Entering the Supertest

  1. there\’s one thing I don\’t get, they basically said the test vehicle would be a \”template\” and not really a specific real design, so why name it Obj 703 (IS-3 prototype) II?
    I hope this is not a sign that we will see fake OP Soviet tanks being added in the near future

    1. How can you affirm that tank is OP? Gun dispersion will make shooting both guns only useful agains paper tanks or when you have the side of the enemy. You need more than 3 seconds aiming for a double shot, so forget about poking and shooting. The aim time is too high. The tanks is balanced quite right maybe even a little bit bad…but op….no way

      1. just like…DEFECTER IS ??
        hwo cares about aim time, dispersion and so on when you are simply impenetrable for standards??

      2. Its OP. It has RUSSIAN gun dipersion and accuracy, good pen ad amazing gold pen, and higher armor than a defender to stand still and aim.

      3. I am sorry that you can’t understand a simple post and so allow me to make it even easier to understand

        I did not write this Obj 703 II is OP
        I wrote I HOPE we won’t see fake OP tanks in the near future

        for me the most important is game balance, historical values should only be a “guideline“ for WG to balance the tank according to how the designer envisioned them to be used in the battlefield and represent the tank as conceptualized in WoT, with fake tanks you do not have that guideline and it becomes much, much easier to go too far

        the Leopard 1 for example, it was designed to be able to respond to the changes in the frontline and provide fire support from a safe distance, if in WoT they buffed its armor by more than 20% or 30% it would have a big impact in its ability to stay true to its concept, the same way reducing armor thickness on a tank should also be avoided especially if it can fit into another tier as is, afterall if you have a tank designed to have a strong turret and suddenly they make it far less strong it will completely break the balance of its design, that was achieved knowing that thicker turret armor means lower mobility and thus expecting it to remain stationary more often than being on the move

        with fake tanks you do not have that and it is way too easier for them to make it OP without even trying, and example:
        IS-7 levels of armor thickness
        Polish Tier 10 levels of firepower
        T110E5 levels of mobility

        mash it all together and you get a tank that can do everything better than any other but has no “personality“, it is simply OP and that is wrong, and I am not even going into how often they have some characteristics that would not be possible to achieve IRL, I am okay with buffing gun depression from -4º to -6/7º but giving a gun to a tank that could not realistically depress more than 2º, from being too big for the size of the turret, and miraculously giving it -6 or -8º is just too much for me

  2. \”We are especially interested in the gameplay concept, not so much in the dummy vehicle itself. None of this vehicle’s characteristics should be taken seriously. It will give all of you (and us) an insight into what a double-barreled tank could look and play like in World of Tanks.\”

    Yeah, just like when you\’ve tested the IS-3A with the inverse autoloader, right?

  3. I’m only worried about one thing. There should be a penalty for canceling salvo/double fire. maybe 3-5 seconds inactivity. I want this thing to have drawbacks. I want it to be unpopular, unpopular tanks are the best. >:)
    Is reloading lock time also known as double fire charging? (7s)
    Is shell preparation time just Intra-clip reload if you play like auto-loader? (3.5s)
    Is gun change just gun change? (5s)
    The teaser said and showed the shells flying parallel, is there only one random trajectory they both abide by?
    .44 accuracy isn’t a good idea, this thing is looking 10x more balanced than the IS-3A.
    .4 or .42 is a better choice, unless they give it really good dispersion values.

  4. well, looking at the pictures the hull looks similar to the 112 (but with 20mm more armor on the UFP and 20mm less on the LFP). angles are a bit unclear, though.

    this could translate into a very tough UFP (and a turret like the IS-3, almost without cupolas by the looks), but at least a weakspot on the LFP.

    what the gun will be like remains to be seen, when more infos on the mechanic are available. in the current maps, where flanking and being rushed is a more theoretical idea, the twin barrel sounds like a BIG alpha increase with only slight downsides. I still wonder on the reload times. if you fire both barrels, will it take you 13 seconds to reload, which would result in 3600 dpm (unlikely, but we are talking about WG and a russian tank …), or does it take you 2*13s, which would bring down the dpm to 1800 (more in line with other tier 8 prems).

  5. I’m skeptical about this. Sure there are penalties and whatever, but the charged/double shot gives a potential average damage of 780, which is higher than some Tier 9-10 tank destroyers, on a Tier 8 heavy tank whose major weaknesses will probably be gun handling and aimtime (as is with IS-3A).

Leave a Reply