Jump to content


T62A needs a buff badly!

T62A medium tank

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
140 replies to this topic

zzlzxzzlzx #41 Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:12 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25177 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012
just hope T62A can be buffed in the 8.0 update...

adpre #42 Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:06 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 54298 battles
  • 64
  • [WASNT] WASNT
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
Sorry to say that, but the threadopeners arguments are just whining and not relevant.

In fact please LEARN 2 Play your tank first.

In addition, whoever mind comparing t-54 to t62a, let me say this are totally different tanks.Let me ask one thing! Where the hell is a rule that following tanks have to get better armor or at least same then one tier before?

If you would study your tank better you would have learned that once on top speed ur fantastic traverse let u make corners almost without losing speed.

And before someone mind looking at my stats, i did ~100 battles on testserver+friends acc, not much, but enough to master that tank most time.

This insane traverse is for example the reason batchatdriver are complaining about because most bat driver would even take the old gun if they get better agility in terms of circling and not loosing too much speed.

T62a is probably most underestimated tank atm cause of many "newbs", currently pulling down his strengths.And yes a t10 driver can be a noob.

Dont know who, but someone in this thread said it perfectly right--->Dont even try to play it like t54....therfor better try to learn using his insane 3000 DPM.

Edited by adpre, 15 September 2012 - 06:10 PM.


mamlas #43 Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View Postadpre, on 15 September 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Where the hell is a rule that following tanks have to get better armor or at least same then one tier before?

They tend to do, don't they? Also, 100 games "on test and friends acc" enough to master a tank? Get to know, sure, but master? :D

There are two things that piss drivers off. Its perfectly fine for tanks to switch roles tier-to-tier on low end. But introducing TX that is completely different, and in much aspects worse than T9? That is going to piss people off. We took Russian line to get the T-54, but now they stitched bastard child of Panther on top of russian tree.

Also, the tank is not that great. The gun has DPS, but in its utility it is sub-par to M48s, E50Ms and Bats. It lack aplha and most notably gun depression. It ain't all that accurate either or it doesn't have the burst capability of bat.
The chassis its mounted to is also silly, big as IS-7, rather slow without enough engine power to climb. To top it off it has worst hull armor and suffers horrible amount of module dmg. Turret can bounce, but mostly it wont. Mantler/gun lets shells in regularly, 70% of front of turret is penned 100% of the time by 240 pen.

Its mostly a weird combo. If it had E50Ms railgun, with its alpha, pen and acc id say ok, its a sniper. If it had gun dep, id understand. But this? Low aplha-high RoF guns with no gun depression usually mean brawler tank. But brawler tank this huge, with this much critical dmg+no armor, long repair times and lack of engine power to accelerate? I cant find any "role" for it, that isn't already done far better by the other TX meds.

Edited by mamlas, 15 September 2012 - 09:55 PM.


adpre #44 Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:30 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 54298 battles
  • 64
  • [WASNT] WASNT
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
First of all, please dont put my words out of their context. I said i made enough battles to see whether this tank is playable(so i can master it - not to be the master) which means to learn his strength and his weaknesses.

And again t54 has NOTHING to do with it. Sure lucky frenchs drivers who didnt got a new tank. But you should realize that there will be ALWAYS a possibility that WG deletes/changes tanks so your whole " we intended to have a t54 as last tank" has no longer weight in this discussion though is totally useless argument.

Furthermore its often soo easy to say "hey on paper this tank has more cons then pros or vice versa" then in fact try to play it and to learn the tanks useability!

Therefor u have to see the whole game not the single tank! E.g.There are tanks indepent from there stats, which do better in CW or in Platoon rather then in single battles. Also the other way around. e.g I prefer only 1 or max 2 Tier 5 scout in a battle  then a platoon of 3 cause of taking much space in a battle!

So pls dont complain only out of your "single" not platooned or teamplayed dependent opinion.

Also my first sentence in last post again: (and its a rhetorical question) Where is such an rule?

That something tends to be, truly doesnt mean it has to be.Even from tier 9-10!

At the end many people here already posted how to drive this vehicle. Take their experience or leave it!

And to your last question! You want to find the "role" of t62-a?

Well sorry to say that, but sterotypes are not mine so try to give him its specific role!

For me a t62-a is a mixture of  an distraction using brawling-circling tank with an patient driver in it!

So its like a batchat should be driven without the scout-role....but hey with more armor....somehow the better bat!

Edited by adpre, 16 September 2012 - 12:32 AM.


george_smiley #45 Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:44 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 125
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
I had a blast playing it again today. I think the best tag-team with T62a is none other than the Foch. Today i just stayed behind a foch and protected it from being flanked.
We crawled slowly together with me staying beside it then we picked the enemies one by one using focus firing. I covered the foch while it was reloading. When we spot an enemy, we used insane DPM to kill a target in less than 15 seconds. I got myself 3 kills while the foch had 5.

Warzey #46 Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:25 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 58051 battles
  • 987
  • [GOOFY] GOOFY
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
The only buff I would like to see is better track repair time, everything else is more-less ok. T-62a is better than T-54 because its more versatile. With T-54 we are basicly stuck with scouting, but with T-62a we can scout, snipe, brawl and provide a good support for heavies. Sure it has a bit low top speed but agility and acceleration are very good. It also has awesome turrent armor which is a lot more reliable than turrent on T-54. The only time I miss 120mm front armor is when facing those pesky french scouts, they tend to penetrate front plate sometimes. I still don't understand why are people whining so much about this tank, T-62a is not OP and its not UP, its well balance compared to counterparts.

shproty #47 Posted 17 September 2012 - 06:43 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 46817 battles
  • 119
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
Warzey

I played about 1500 games  with  T54 (my favorite tank) Yes  it  quite  good  combat scout. But  it  more  uneversal  tank - you can easy support  with it by flanking or  take good position.  T54 starting to win racing with T62 when they reach  appr. 40km/h. T62 must  be a  little  bit  faster (hope  it  get at  least  50 hp  of  engin  in  future) The only better thing what T62 have - gun. That  is  realy  big  advantage.  By all other parameters  T54 is  better.  200mm T54 front turret  holds/bounces shots much better that T62 turret. That  T62 turret  looks like have week  points left and  right of gun area below gun line (if  somebody have more than 240mm  penetration  that area easy catch  shells)

In my opition  E50M, T62, M48 must have a little  more engine power. Hope in future they get this. Because for  example to look now on M48 without crying seems  impossible :)

Edited by shproty, 17 September 2012 - 06:53 AM.


Injector_X #48 Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17051 battles
  • 617
  • [SKTD] SKTD
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011
With the new more accurate gun coming to the T-54 the T-62A loses its final edge over T-54. I have 400-500+ games with T-54 with 51% win ratio but with T-62A i have 40% or so win ratio! I loved playing the T-54 but getting T-62A was waste of XP and a like bucked of cold water poured on me to see how bad that tank was. I know some people like it, but i really do not know what to do to make it work when playing SOLO randoms with it! It does not feel like a "gamechanger" it can be killed easily by 2x AMX 13 90s even!

T-54 pros and cons at 8.0 2nd phase test

+two different guns to choose from one with  201 penetration but with 0.35 & 2.3sec accuracy (that allows T-54 now fire on the move effectively) vs 218 penetration 0.38(or 0.39) & 2.9sec aiming time both have about same RoF (about 7.5) and 320 average damage on both guns, same as on T-62A:s 100mm gun.
+120mm front armor and 80mm side armor with 200mm in sloped turret front which is well enough to bounce shots.
+better top speed than T-62A
+better acceleration than T-62A
+better camo value than T-62A
-less penetration than T-62A due to AP shells but EQUAL penetration with (gold) HEAT shells.
-less accuracy (but not by much with the 2nd new gun) & hit points due to T-54 being tier IX and T-62A being TX (in real life modernized during 50s the T-54 had equally good gun stabilization)
-slightly less view range

T-62A pros and cons
+240mm turret front armor (like T-54s 200mm turret front was any easier to penetrate. It was solid, except at very bottom maybe but its hard to aim there & you can still penetrate T-62A turret front)
+great gun stablization aka accuracy (firing on the move)
+good RoF (but you cannot slug it out with the T-62A you will always end up losing to other mediums, unlike with T-54 you could angle & bounce shots, plus low damage rolls cancel it out sometimes)
+good penetration due to APCR shells (and not the gun)
+better turning speed than T-54 (like T-54 was not turning already fast enough)
-Worse front & side armor than T-54 (102mm front & 75mm side)
-Worse top speed than T-54
-Worse acceleration than than T-54
-Easy to set on fire trough front armor
-bigger size, bigger target
-bigger size, slightly worse camo value
-Low alpha damage (lowest of all TX)
-Low damage rolls of 200+ make you feel that you are using a peashooter sometimes!
-2nd lowest hit points of all TX mediums
-2nd slowest TX medium, (yes E-50M is faster and beats the T-62A in front to front slug fest at 100m, M48A1 beats it even faster)

WINNER THE T-54! (due to the new 2nd gun & i took out the tier difference out of the equasion and treated both tanks as they would have equal HP & both used APCR or HEAT shells) By the way the T-54 used APCR shells pre 7.5 patch as gold premium shells and it had 264 penetration with them iirc, now it has 350 with HEAT shells which is EXACTLY same as T-62A has with its HEAT shells, the T-62A would have 218-220 penetration if it used ordinary AP shells probably.

Now due to physics in 8.0 the T-62A can go up to 59-60km/h downhill now but the top speed limit is still 50km/h on flat road, but i would still like to see these changes.

Choice A: give it 120-122mm front armor (or at least so the game calculates it as it was 120-122mm that could bounce something when angled OR:

Choice B: Give the T-62A and ALTERNATIVE GUN like the historical 115mm smoothbore with AP shells and 390 average damage with 5.8-6.0 Rate of Fire (other stats, like penetration & accuracy could be otherwise same as the 100mm gun, it would have less DPM overall but now it would have decent Alpha Damage which is more important to me if the tank cannot "brawl" really. Then it could be a really good sniper/support tank and you could still choose the 100mm gun with 320 average damage and 9.09 RoF for those who like more RoF but less alpha damage. In my opinion having bad alpha damage does not fit to a tank that has no hull armor whatsoever. I would like to CHOOSE, you do not have to make the 115mm gun OP, it could be somewhat equal to the 105s. But with least RoF & same damage.

Also keep the 50km/h top speed but give T-62A the 690hp engine for better acceleration and faster hill climb.

PS. T-62A was a failure even historically, they made it from T-55 chassis but they had to make it wider and longer chassis & mount new turret to be able to ("fit") mount the 115mm smoothbore gun and not the 100mm gun, the few T-62A models the soviets had were so bad that they were not worth building without the 115mm smoothbore since their older modernized versions T-54/55 tanks were performing equally good or even better historically!)

So the T-62A is basicly a gimped T-62 fitted with 100mm gun instead of 115mm smoothbore. It has same chassis & turret in this game as normal T-62 but NO 115m smoothbore and only 580hp engine instead of real life 690hp engine that was on T-62 tanks.

zzlzxzzlzx #49 Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:17 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25177 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012

View PostInjector_X, on 17 September 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

With the new more accurate gun coming to the T-54 the T-62A loses its final edge over T-54. I have 400-500+ games with T-54 with 51% win ratio but with T-62A i have 40% or so win ratio! I loved playing the T-54 but getting T-62A was waste of XP and a like bucked of cold water poured on me to see how bad that tank was. I know some people like it, but i really do not know what to do to make it work when playing SOLO randoms with it! It does not feel like a "gamechanger" it can be killed easily by 2x AMX 13 90s even!

T-54 pros and cons at 8.0 2nd phase test

+two different guns to choose from one with  201 penetration but with 0.35 & 2.3sec accuracy (that allows T-54 now fire on the move effectively) vs 218 penetration 0.38(or 0.39) & 2.9sec aiming time both have about same RoF (about 7.5) and 320 average damage on both guns, same as on T-62A:s 100mm gun.
+120mm front armor and 80mm side armor with 200mm in sloped turret front which is well enough to bounce shots.
+better top speed than T-62A
+better acceleration than T-62A
+better camo value than T-62A
-less penetration than T-62A due to AP shells but EQUAL penetration with (gold) HEAT shells.
-less accuracy (but not by much with the 2nd new gun) & hit points due to T-54 being tier IX and T-62A being TX (in real life modernized during 50s the T-54 had equally good gun stabilization)
-slightly less view range

T-62A pros and cons
+240mm turret front armor (like T-54s 200mm turret front was any easier to penetrate. It was solid, except at very bottom maybe but its hard to aim there & you can still penetrate T-62A turret front)
+great gun stablization aka accuracy (firing on the move)
+good RoF (but you cannot slug it out with the T-62A you will always end up losing to other mediums, unlike with T-54 you could angle & bounce shots, plus low damage rolls cancel it out sometimes)
+good penetration due to APCR shells (and not the gun)
+better turning speed than T-54 (like T-54 was not turning already fast enough)
-Worse front & side armor than T-54 (102mm front & 75mm side)
-Worse top speed than T-54
-Worse acceleration than than T-54
-Easy to set on fire trough front armor
-bigger size, bigger target
-bigger size, slightly worse camo value
-Low alpha damage (lowest of all TX)
-Low damage rolls of 200+ make you feel that you are using a peashooter sometimes!
-2nd lowest hit points of all TX mediums
-2nd slowest TX medium, (yes E-50M is faster and beats the T-62A in front to front slug fest at 100m, M48A1 beats it even faster)

WINNER THE T-54! (due to the new 2nd gun & i took out the tier difference out of the equasion and treated both tanks as they would have equal HP & both used APCR or HEAT shells) By the way the T-54 used APCR shells pre 7.5 patch as gold premium shells and it had 264 penetration with them iirc, now it has 350 with HEAT shells which is EXACTLY same as T-62A has with its HEAT shells, the T-62A would have 218-220 penetration if it used ordinary AP shells probably.

Now due to physics in 8.0 the T-62A can go up to 59-60km/h downhill now but the top speed limit is still 50km/h on flat road, but i would still like to see these changes.

Choice A: give it 120-122mm front armor (or at least so the game calculates it as it was 120-122mm that could bounce something when angled OR:

Choice B: Give the T-62A and ALTERNATIVE GUN like the historical 115mm smoothbore with AP shells and 390 average damage with 5.8-6.0 Rate of Fire (other stats, like penetration & accuracy could be otherwise same as the 100mm gun, it would have less DPM overall but now it would have decent Alpha Damage which is more important to me if the tank cannot "brawl" really. Then it could be a really good sniper/support tank and you could still choose the 100mm gun with 320 average damage and 9.09 RoF for those who like more RoF but less alpha damage. In my opinion having bad alpha damage does not fit to a tank that has no hull armor whatsoever. I would like to CHOOSE, you do not have to make the 115mm gun OP, it could be somewhat equal to the 105s. But with least RoF & same damage.

Also keep the 50km/h top speed but give T-62A the 690hp engine for better acceleration and faster hill climb.

PS. T-62A was a failure even historically, they made it from T-55 chassis but they had to make it wider and longer chassis & mount new turret to be able to ("fit") mount the 115mm smoothbore gun and not the 100mm gun, the few T-62A models the soviets had were so bad that they were not worth building without the 115mm smoothbore since their older modernized versions T-54/55 tanks were performing equally good or even better historically!)

So the T-62A is basicly a gimped T-62 fitted with 100mm gun instead of 115mm smoothbore. It has same chassis & turret in this game as normal T-62 but NO 115m smoothbore and only 580hp engine instead of real life 690hp engine that was on T-62 tanks.
Very impressive analysis! thanks for these comparison in much much details! I think the fact that this post has been "HOT" is a strong evidence that T62A needs a buff. i didn't see any other forums have vehement debate like this for other Tier X meds!
WG and WOT: Please surprise us (all Russian Fans) in update 8.0. Make our 200000XP and 6100000 credits at least worth anything!

Meglodon #50 Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:25 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 29818 battles
  • 130
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011
If anything is gonan get a buff on the 62 it should be its shells:

in comparison: (gun data in brackets)

62
Cost: 1100
Dmg: 240-400 (390)
Pen: 198-300 (264)

50m
Cost: 1200
dmg: 293-488 (390)
pen: 203-338 (270)

m48
cost: 1000
dmg: 293-488 (390)
Pen: 201-335 (298)

While the guns say the avrage damage is the same across all tanks the t62s lower minimum makes you have some very bad range days where you pump out rounds and get dmg rolls in the mid 200s and that sucks hard. With the high cost of the shell it makes it alot harder to get some credits (due to lower damage) then the other two tanks.

{edut}
Thumbs up @ Injector_X

Edited by Meglodon, 18 September 2012 - 09:29 AM.


mamlas #51 Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostMeglodon, on 18 September 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

If anything is gonan get a buff on the 62 it should be its shells:

I don't know mate. Sure they are much pricier(you have avg dmg. on 62 wrong btw) than other TXs. But then T-54 had the worst credit/dmg ration in the entire game, so this is in fact upgrade! :D

Buff the engine, i can live with having 50% more expensive shell per dmg dealt than M48.

IsoA #52 Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 16087 battles
  • 525
  • Member since:
    11-28-2010

View PostInjector_X, on 17 September 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

WINNER THE T-54!

So the T-62A is basicly a gimped T-62 fitted with 100mm gun instead of 115mm smoothbore. It has same chassis & turret in this game as normal T-62 but NO 115m smoothbore and only 580hp engine instead of real life 690hp engine that was on T-62 tanks.

You can slug it out with E-50M if you so choose (which you probably shouldnt do unless you are hulldown). The T-62a can out-dps E-50M. And if you have any sense you will not slug it out head to head from 100m, you are hugging his side when going 1 on 1.

You can brawl with the T-62A just as well as you could with T-54. You just have to know what you are doing and not charge blindly on.

Someone pls explain exactly WHY you cant brawl in T-62A? Not enough front armor? T-54 is penetrated just as easily by equal tier tanks from the front. Not fast enough? Extralow ground resistance compensates pretty well for the lower top speed. What is the exact reason why it's just impossible to brawl?

Actually you have certain advantage in brawling that you did not have before: when you are closing in on your target you can fire from the move and actually hit most of the time. T-54 is very inaccurate while shooting from the move. The only real downside is the flammability of the fuel tank in T-62A and that is actually the one thing I wouldnt mind being buffed.

mamlas #53 Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 14704 battles
  • 656
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostIsoA, on 18 September 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Someone pls explain exactly WHY you cant brawl in T-62A? Not enough front armor? T-54 is penetrated just as easily by equal tier tanks from the front. Not fast enough?

Size, bigger is worse.
Armor, T-54 can bounce 220 pen. 220 pen is usuall for T9 meds. T-62a can not bounce 220 pen, let alone 260 which is the usual for TX meds. Behind those armors are fuel+ammo weakspots. Weaker armor + higher pen+caliber enemy guns means more critical dmg.
Speed is no-issue while brawling, acceleration is.
Twice as long repair times on tracks = bad.

That about sum it up? T-62a cant brawl properly, it can do lots of stuff, but brawling...only vs solo slow targets, and even thats risky.

Edited by mamlas, 18 September 2012 - 03:48 PM.


IsoA #54 Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 16087 battles
  • 525
  • Member since:
    11-28-2010

View Postmamlas, on 18 September 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Size, bigger is worse.
Armor, T-54 can bounce 220 pen. 220 pen is usuall for T9 meds. T-62a can not bounce 220 pen, let alone 260 which is the usual for TX meds. Behind those armors are fuel+ammo weakspots. Weaker armor + higher pen+caliber enemy guns means more critical dmg.
Speed is no-issue while brawling, acceleration is.
Twice as long repair times on tracks = bad.

That about sum it up? T-62a cant brawl properly, it can do lots of stuff, but brawling...only vs solo slow targets, and even thats risky.

I have no idea how you people do your brawling, but I have played my T-62A in a similar way than my T-54, maybe a bit more sniping, but still a lot brawling. I havent been disappointed so far and I have good-ish stats on it although only 50 or so battles.

T-54 also has a lot less penetration and when engaging well armored targets it can sometimes be a challenge to penetrate them, usually you can penetrate only their sides or rear. T-62A has plenty of penetration and can penetrate many heavily armored tanks straight from the front.

Well, each to his own I suppose, if you are so disappointed then by all means dont drive it.

TheHellFish #55 Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8599 battles
  • 116
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostInjector_X, on 17 September 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

With the new more accurate gun coming to the T-54 the T-62A loses its final edge over T-54. I have 400-500+ games with T-54 with 51% win ratio but with T-62A i have 40% or so win ratio! I loved playing the T-54 but getting T-62A was waste of XP and a like bucked of cold water poured on me to see how bad that tank was. I know some people like it, but i really do not know what to do to make it work when playing SOLO randoms with it! It does not feel like a "gamechanger" it can be killed easily by 2x AMX 13 90s even!

I was quite scared when I saw paper stats when 7.5 test was released, but after I tried it i was pleasantly surprised. This tank excels at support role and "hovertracks" make it more nimble than the T-54. After 500 batles in it (all solo pubs) I maintain around 57% win rate. I suggest you to buy back your T-44, try to remember how you played it and then play T-62A again. Forget T-54, it's a different tank (and I actually hated it because of the sh*t gun).

View PostInjector_X, on 17 September 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

So the T-62A is basicly a gimped T-62 fitted with 100mm gun instead of 115mm smoothbore. It has same chassis & turret in this game as normal T-62 but NO 115m smoothbore and only 580hp engine instead of real life 690hp engine that was on T-62 tanks.

True.

Edited by TheHellFish, 18 September 2012 - 08:55 PM.


zzlzxzzlzx #56 Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:56 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25177 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012

View PostIsoA, on 18 September 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I have no idea how you people do your brawling, but I have played my T-62A in a similar way than my T-54, maybe a bit more sniping, but still a lot brawling. I havent been disappointed so far and I have good-ish stats on it although only 50 or so battles.

T-54 also has a lot less penetration and when engaging well armored targets it can sometimes be a challenge to penetrate them, usually you can penetrate only their sides or rear. T-62A has plenty of penetration and can penetrate many heavily armored tanks straight from the front.

Well, each to his own I suppose, if you are so disappointed then by all means dont drive it.
what you are suggesting? 200000 exp and 6100000credits for nothing? it is not about driving it or not, it is about the balance and fairness of this game. if you think t62a is good enough, go play yourself and leave this forum alone. thanks for cooperation.

IsoA #57 Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 16087 battles
  • 525
  • Member since:
    11-28-2010

View Postzzlzxzzlzx, on 18 September 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

what you are suggesting? 200000 exp and 6100000credits for nothing? it is not about driving it or not, it is about the balance and fairness of this game. if you think t62a is good enough, go play yourself and leave this forum alone. thanks for cooperation.

Please see the attached server statistics. As you can see, T-62A has good win ratio here at EU server. Actually they all have decent stats but for some funny reason there is always someone crying how M48/T-62A/E-50M/BatChat is pitiful piece of crap.

TANK				   PLAYERS  BATTLES	 NEW   OWNERS	 BpP		   WIN_RATIO			 CHANGE			GLOBAL_WR			 STDDEV
M48A1					 3540   208830	3541	 3540	  59			 52.27%				 ---			  55.12%			  13.57%
T-62A					 4346   228027	4347	 4346	  52			 52.20%				 ---			  54.49%			  13.80%
E-50 Ausf.M			   4068   195595	4068	 4068	  48			 50.10%				 ---			  54.04%			  14.56%
Bat Chatillon 25 t	   17818   561538	1401	20306	  32			 49.53%			  -1.20%			  53.37%			  19.43%

Oh, and thanks for the -1 just for voicing my opinion!

Edited by IsoA, 19 September 2012 - 08:47 AM.


PRO_MEMBER #58 Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:08 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 21832 battles
  • 2,850
  • [ICYA] ICYA
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011

View PostTheHellFish, on 18 September 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

I was quite scared when I saw paper stats when 7.5 test was released, but after I tried it i was pleasantly surprised. This tank excels at support role and "hovertracks" make it more nimble than the T-54. After 500 batles in it (all solo pubs) I maintain around 57% win rate. I suggest you to buy back your T-44, try to remember how you played it and then play T-62A again. Forget T-54, it's a different tank (and I actually hated it because of the sh*t gun).

This. T-54 is a super aggressive tank and should be played as such, T-62A is more like T-44. Fast relocation and fire support, but unlike T-44 with T-62A you have ability to penetrate frontally (T-44 had to flank - always).

So far I like it, even if I had bad luck first couple of games (still learning its playstyle). ROF is impressive, accuracy on the move is impressive, DPM is impressive, low speed agility and traverse are impressive. The biggest downsides are 50km/h speed limit, weak engine, literally no gun depression (i think its worse than any french tank I've driven), mediocre alpha and catching fire from frontal shots. Preventive maintenance is a must here (maybe co2 tanks as well??).

TheHellFish #59 Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:37 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8599 battles
  • 116
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View Postarbenowskee, on 19 September 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Fast relocation and fire support, but unlike T-44 with T-62A you have ability to penetrate frontally (T-44 had to flank - always).

Exactly.

View Postarbenowskee, on 19 September 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

The biggest downsides are 50km/h speed limit, weak engine, literally no gun depression (i think its worse than any french tank I've driven), mediocre alpha and catching fire from frontal shots. Preventive maintenance is a must here (maybe co2 tanks as well??).

Engine fire is not a problem, it has only 10% chance to be set on fire which is really low, maybe the lowest afaik, so I'm afraid that preventative maintenance is kinda useless in this case. Problem is the fuel tank under UFP, but if you can carry a fire extinguisher there's no point in mounting CO2 over rammer/vent/vertstab.

Mike_Hammer #60 Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26771 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    09-14-2010

View Postarbenowskee, on 19 September 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

(T-44 had to flank - always).

There's a fair bit of tier 8 you can penetrate frontally with 175mm pen reliably enough. The closer you are the easier it is.





Also tagged with T62A, medium, tank

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users