Jump to content


Armor & camouflage tests of E-50 patch 6.6 test 2


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

DubWhite #1 Posted 30 July 2011 - 09:10 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011
Testers:test server patch 6.6 test 2
1.stanbadboy aka Dub White E-50 (3 skills -100%/Medium Cal.Tank Gun rammer/Vertical stabilizer/Coated optics)Russia
2.yogyrt E-50 & Т-54(3 skills -100%/Medium Cal.Tank Gun rammer/Vertical stabilizer/Improved ventilation)Russia

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/cv2oEqrZ.jpg
Distance 200 & 100 мeters.Gun КWK 45 L52 Ausf.B(Е-50)(AP shells)
Test results:
200 м - 10 shots/penetration - 6.
100 м - 10 shots/penetration - 6( critical damage to driver)
http://s2.ipicture.r...30/9lH4Jb51.jpg
Distance 200 & 100 мeters.Gun КWK 45 L52 Ausf.B(Е-50)(AP shells)
Test results:
200 м - 10 shots/penetration - 6.
100 м - 10 shots/penetration - 9(2 critical damage to driver & radio operator)

Auto-aim system test
Firing to E-50 by T-54 main gun D-54.Using the auto-aim system.Distance to target - 200 meters.
Test results:
10 shots/Penetration-4/Ricochet-1/No penetration -5/Critical damage - 3 (!!!)
Firing to T-54 by E-50 main gun KWK 45 L52 Ausf B.Using the auto-aim system.Distance to target - 200 meters.
Test results:
10 shots/Penetration-6/No penetration -4/Critical damage - 1.

Camouflage & visibility test
1.
Е-50 "in bush" visibility - 140 meters.
Е-50 "moving" visibility - 385 meters.
2.
Т-54 "in bush" visibility - 70 meters(!!!)
Т-54 "moving" visibility - 320-315 meters.
Result:T-54 camouflage system is extremelly more effective then E-50.

Collision test:
Maximum speed front collision.E-50 lose 23% of HP.T-54 lose 41 % of HP

The points of critical damages test.Screenshots:

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/V5Veiytp.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/8tj389S5.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/WmmmL39b.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/B7TD7Ng1.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/WwT7AE02.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/c5UVFVPX.jpg

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/mfEVZXk5.jpg

Results:5 ammo rack critical zones detected!!!

Bug:

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/3TUhZXle.jpg

Good news.6 shots - 6 ricochet.KWK 45 L52 Ausf B.Distance 50 meters.Front attack

http://s2.ipicture.r...30/sLV303sf.jpg

Special thanx to Yogyrt for testing.
Big upz from Russia & Russian main server!

P.S.Sorry for bad english.


Hell460 #2 Posted 30 July 2011 - 09:25 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2534 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
Nice test. A bit hard to read some of the results, big no big deal. I am on a fairly large monitor and it's 22:25.. anyways.

But as I said, good test. Hope that they'll fix the mudguards bug. (Why does only german vehicles seem to have this problem? <_<)

DubWhite #3 Posted 30 July 2011 - 09:32 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostHell460, on 30 July 2011 - 09:25 PM, said:

Nice test. A bit hard to read some of the results, big no big deal. I am on a fairly large monitor and it's 22:25.. anyways.

But as I said, good test. Hope that they'll fix the mudguards bug. (Why does only german vehicles seem to have this problem? <_<)

Thanx)))I don`t really know why german tanks has weak characteristics.We at russian forum asks same questions.I hope pressure & discussions of EU users change this trend.

igoryak #4 Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:12 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 11383 battles
  • 83
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011
Very nice test thank you alot for posting !


I believe that E50 with the new hard front armor deserves an HP nerf to be on par with a T54. 1800 is too much for that armor.

Patton has the weakest armor and even so the E50 has more HP than him.


edit : lol, people really dont like the word "nerf", maybe I should use "reduce", or maybe u should just grow up and learn to speak your mind instead of giving negative votes (nobody cares about votes anyhow).

CommissionerJan #5 Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32685 battles
  • 394
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
Hehe, the good old full damage mudflaps. *facepalm*

zawisha #6 Posted 30 July 2011 - 11:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 3920 battles
  • 189
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View Postigoryak, on 30 July 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

Very nice test thank you alot for posting !


I believe that E50 with the new hard front armor deserves an HP nerf to be on par with a T54. 1800 is too much for that armor.

Patton has the weakest armor and even so the E50 has more HP than him.

t54 whininers detected already! ... seriously.

igoryak #7 Posted 31 July 2011 - 02:25 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 11383 battles
  • 83
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

View Postzawisha, on 30 July 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

t54 whininers detected already! ... seriously.

lol, Im a Patton driver. As I did on the test-server, U got a problem with my honest opinion you can say it in private instead of writing this useless piece of thrash post.

Ascender #8 Posted 31 July 2011 - 02:45 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 21985 battles
  • 2,592
  • [EFE] EFE
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
About the patton it's funny that it isn't really an improvement from the Pershing (atleast stats-wise) at all, it's exacly the same now as the Pershing was on T9 before it was replaced, no improvement at all.

Those mudflaps however are kind of ridiculous, i have had the same happen to me in the Tiger II with quite severe regularity actually, they also seem to ding sometimes so they have actual armor value (though seemingly quite low) which is funny concidering it isn't an actual part of the tank other thank to reduce splash damage and such (idk i'm not a tank expert but it's not a part of armor supposed to stop tank shells anyhow!!)

Also good job testing, WG seems to have more respect for people coming up with actual 'stats' then just speculations when it comes to listening to the community.

Vampyre #9 Posted 31 July 2011 - 02:51 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5186 battles
  • 119
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010

View Postigoryak, on 30 July 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

Very nice test thank you alot for posting !


I believe that E50 with the new hard front armor deserves an HP nerf to be on par with a T54. 1800 is too much for that armor.

Patton has the weakest armor and even so the E50 has more HP than him.

Even Panther II had more HP just keep that in mind, nothing new. Patton's HP is not far from E50's Hp either.
In addition Patton and T54 are faster and accelerate faster (if i play arty it's easier to hit an E50 which tries to accelerate).
T54 also bounces more shoots and is smaller. If you would give it more HP, T54 drivers will just rush anything anywhere since it's very fast and killing it would take too much time. Hitting the right spot on it with certain tanks is already hard enough.

FetterFettsack #10 Posted 31 July 2011 - 10:24 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40711 battles
  • 471
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Thank you for doing this test. :)

Dutchmul #11 Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 24015 battles
  • 2,504
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
Hi Guys

A huge thanks to Dub White & Yogyrt for doing the test and posting it here,  :Smile_honoring: .

Looks like the e50 will have the usual german tank weaknesses, the ammo rack damage and criticals look identical to what u get on a tiger 2.

Cheers

DubWhite #12 Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:28 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostDutchmul, on 31 July 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

Hi Guys

A huge thanks to Dub White & Yogyrt for doing the test and posting it here,  :Smile_honoring: .

Looks like the e50 will have the usual german tank weaknesses, the ammo rack damage and criticals look identical to what u get on a tiger 2.

Cheers

Not at all,mate)))

mura #13 Posted 01 August 2011 - 11:11 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 28663 battles
  • 373
  • Member since:
    10-05-2010
Just about the HP, it is strange that medium tank has more HP than a heavy of the same tier...
The devs will maybe nerf it like they did to E100 but still I'm looking forward to get this beast.

Hornet331 #14 Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:25 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
Why I am not surprised that the front mudguards again deliver full damag... its like they try it with every tank to sneak that in...

DubWhite #15 Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:30 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostHornet331, on 01 August 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Why I am not surprised that the front mudguards again deliver full damag... its like they try it with every tank to sneak that in...
I asked this question in topic at RU forum.Developers tolds "This fact with penetration to mudguards will be checked".Waiting for developers reaction & bugfix




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users