Jump to content


T-54 mod. 1: Restore it as it gets buffed or nah?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

Poll: T-54 mod. 1 (29 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Is it worth it to get T-54 mod 1 back with upcoming buffs? (note: when you factor buffs, not how it is now)

  1. Yes, because the tank will be worth it after buffs (8 votes [27.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.59%

  2. No, because the tank will still suck (21 votes [72.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.41%

Vote Hide poll

leggasiini #1 Posted 18 July 2017 - 03:44 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14140 battles
  • 6,191
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

T-54 Mod 1 gets following changes in 9.20:

 

  • Turret armor increased by 10 mm
  • View range increased from 360 to 380
  • Aim time from 2,4 to 2.2
  • Dispersion on move buffed quite alot
  • Gun depression buffed to -7 (not completely sure).

 

Its quite a nice buff, but it still keeps the poor penetration combined with poor mobility, the gun still seems bleh and it has low HP pool which hinders its heavium capabilities. I sold the tank over month ago because it sucks at its current state, but I wonder if its going to be good enough to actually restore it. Yea, it was dumb mistake to sell it, but anyways. I need opinions.

 

tho not sure how smart it is to count upon to official forum but whatever


Edited by leggasiini, 18 July 2017 - 03:45 PM.


rush0620 #2 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22839 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    01-03-2012

Useless 183 mm pen tier 10 battles, 235 mm is too small. Repleace T44 85M and happy all!

 

D10T gun min AP pen 208 - 212 and APCR shell repleace 270 - 300 mm pen HEAT shell. Real life D10T gun use 400 mm pen HEAT shell.


Edited by rush0620, 18 July 2017 - 04:12 PM.


Search_Warrant #3 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27190 battles
  • 6,145
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
poor medium and a failure as a heavy. dont see the point of the buffs, its still crap.

Edited by Search_Warrant, 18 July 2017 - 04:11 PM.


cro001 #4 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29529 battles
  • 1,920
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

I like how WG managed to dodge important stuff to buff and buffs absolutely unnecessary things.

 

Pro tip for WG: If you can't pen your tank with its gun the tank is absolutely horrendous to drive and to face.


Edited by cro001, 18 July 2017 - 04:26 PM.


ZlatanArKung #5 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:38 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 18 July 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

T-54 Mod 1 gets following changes in 9.20:

 

  • Turret armor increased by 10 mm
  • View range increased from 360 to 380
  • Aim time from 2,4 to 2.2
  • Dispersion on move buffed quite alot
  • Gun depression buffed to -7 (not completely sure).

 

Its quite a nice buff, but it still keeps the poor penetration combined with poor mobility, the gun still seems bleh and it has low HP pool which hinders its heavium capabilities. I sold the tank over month ago because it sucks at its current state, but I wonder if its going to be good enough to actually restore it. Yea, it was dumb mistake to sell it, but anyways. I need opinions.

 

tho not sure how smart it is to count upon to official forum but whatever

 

The only thing this does better then Defender is training Russian Medium crews, but that is arguable anyway.



Junglist_ #6 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37112 battles
  • 1,348
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
Nope

Enforcer1975 #7 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,858
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
The actual problem which is the rather mediocre pen nowadays stays the same. They will "buff the turret front significantly"...what good is a harder turret face when you still can't pen the tanks you are facing? The armor was acceptable enough for me for a slightly armored med...i just wanted more pen, as rush mentioned above something between 200-210 base pen and maybe +25% premium pen.

sasopocmarany #8 Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9959 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    03-26-2013
would be better if it also got some mobility pen and alpha buffs but i guess it will be a bit better and i will try it

Edited by sasopocmarany, 18 July 2017 - 06:07 PM.


lord_chipmonk #9 Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33952 battles
  • 10,251
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012
I always thought one of the biggest problems with the tank was the derpy gun, so the buffs look pretty decent to me. 

fisco77 #10 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 69310 battles
  • 468
  • Member since:
    07-09-2012
I think it's OK, you bully lower tiers with armor and the rest of the time you're a support tank. They buffed the pen once already, give it 212mm and tanks like CDC and Mutz would feel the same, +-mobility/armor. All you lot whine about these tanks like they are unplayable, no, you just have to try a little bit harder to make it work. I call it a challenge.

Edited by fisco77, 18 July 2017 - 08:04 PM.


GekkoGordon #11 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4097 battles
  • 275
  • [-VUK-] -VUK-
  • Member since:
    04-17-2012

View Postrush0620, on 18 July 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

Useless 183 mm pen tier 10 battles, 235 mm is too small. Repleace T44 85M and happy all!

 

D10T gun min AP pen 208 - 212 and APCR shell repleace 270 - 300 mm pen HEAT shell. Real life D10T gun use 400 mm pen HEAT shell.

 

Edited


Edited by Asklepi0s, 19 July 2017 - 01:05 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to advertisement of another game


LaManche #12 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19280 battles
  • 477
  • Member since:
    03-31-2014

Respect you money, if you bought it for real cash then keep it no matter what. I don't get people who sell a tank and then complain/be upset that they sold it when there's a buff on the horizon.

 

Going back to your question, nope, the tank will not be worth purchasing again. The mobility has not been touched nor the penetration and these two are the biggest griefs I have with Mod 1. 



Nexuo #13 Posted 19 July 2017 - 01:16 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20548 battles
  • 254
  • [DPG2] DPG2
  • Member since:
    09-19-2013
Awesome how WG buff this tank in ways not many players really cared about to see happen. Penetration and mobility, simple and yet so easily missed. 

sasopocmarany #14 Posted 19 July 2017 - 12:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9959 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    03-26-2013

View PostNexuo, on 19 July 2017 - 01:16 AM, said:

Awesome how WG buff this tank in ways not many players really cared about to see happen. Penetration and mobility, simple and yet so easily missed. 

 

good point but well it's still good to see it have better handling aim time and some turret armor since it's total paper

but  agree the mobility and pen should be way better



anonym_uktlgGKuDbuG #15 Posted 19 July 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    10-12-2018

The biggest problem with this tank was always the shitty gun handling, penetration and thin turret armor. I'm glad they're at least buffing two of those stats, it will make it playable. 

 

It's still better than a T-44 imo, except vs tier X.



HundeWurst #16 Posted 19 July 2017 - 01:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 69735 battles
  • 4,337
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Its a start but you will still be a slow badly armored tank with a potatoe gun in the current matchmaking.

 

The tank will be better obviously but not by much. You are still stuck with 183mm penetration. You will still be slow and have no armor against tier 9 and 10 you pretty much see every battle.

 

I would not do it. If you have other tank options. Wait. That tank is not worth it even after the buffs.



IncandescentGerbil #17 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35679 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
My only tier 8 premium. And it is going to stay edited. Hurray. Slow, crap gun, boring to play, and in 90% of games even the buffed armour will be useless.

anonym_uktlgGKuDbuG #18 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    10-12-2018
Well it has pretty much the same effective hull armor as the T-54 but a tier lower so I wouldn't call it useless. When angled tier IX guns can bounce.

Search_Warrant #19 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:41 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27190 battles
  • 6,145
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostTr0gledyte, on 19 July 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Well it has pretty much the same effective hull armor as the T-54 but a tier lower so I wouldn't call it useless. When angled tier IX guns can bounce.

 

problem is the crap turret with a flat mantle. you go over a ridge and they shoot the "chin" of the tank and pen you. what makes T-54 good is the hull combined with a sturdy dome turret to peek ridges. this cant do that.

Edited by Search_Warrant, 19 July 2017 - 02:43 PM.


anonym_uktlgGKuDbuG #20 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    10-12-2018

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 19 July 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

 

problem is the crap turret with a flat mantle. you go over a ridge and they shoot the "chin" of the tank and pen you. what makes T-54 good is the hull combined with a sturdy dome turret to peek ridges. this cant do that.

 

From my experience the T-54's turret is so tiny it's actually really hard not to expose your hull by accident anyway..  but that might just be me, I haven't played it that much yet.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users