Jump to content


Give T32 a gun buff only 200 mm pen gun


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

benjaminp #1 Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:37 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31263 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011
Give T32 a gun buff only 200mm pen gun

brumbarr #2 Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
I think they should just give it the same pen values as the chrysler K tbh. 

AliceUnchained #3 Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:01 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
That's not true, it also has a 170 mm penetration gun.

MarcoStrapone #4 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36159 battles
  • 723
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

T32 never ever used the 105mm gun.

so its a gift here.



Private_Pearts #5 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21998 battles
  • 526
  • [WOPR] WOPR
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

View PostMarcoStrapone, on 21 August 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

T32 never ever used the 105mm gun.

so its a gift here.

 

If you look at all of the tanks in this game half didn't exist and hardly any existed with some of the gun options you see here. Funnily though WG insist that British tanks get as close to historically accurate as possible. For example there is no reason that the Black Prince shouldn't have a 20lb gun and another 8kph top speed but WG hate the Brits so screw em.

AvengerOrion #6 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25941 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

View PostMarcoStrapone, on 21 August 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

T32 never ever used the 105mm gun.

so its a gift here.

 

Tiger II also never had any 105 mm guns.

IS-3 production tanks never had the BL-9.

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

 



Laatikkomafia #7 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 21315 battles
  • 4,245
  • [ELC-P] ELC-P
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

I can live with the below-average penetration.

 

Accuracy is the issue. Why the F-word is the IS-3's gun more accurate?



brumbarr #8 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostAliceUnchained, on 21 August 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

That's not true, it also has a 170 mm penetration gun.

 

yeah, but that gun is for idiots who think the 90mm gun is better...

AvengerOrion #9 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25941 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 21 August 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

I can live with the below-average penetration.

 

Accuracy is the issue. Why the F-word is the IS-3's gun more accurate?

 

Because Rasha, duh.

But the IS-3 in real life didn't need the BL-9.

The D-25T was good enough to pen almost anything the allies could throw at it and anything it couldn't pen would get blasted to scrap taken out of service with 122 mm HE.


Edited by AvengerOrion, 21 August 2017 - 09:42 PM.


Private_Pearts #10 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21998 battles
  • 526
  • [WOPR] WOPR
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 21 August 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

I can live with the below-average penetration.

 

Accuracy is the issue. Why the F-word is the IS-3's gun more accurate?

 

I could tell you but they'd lock the thread.

commer #11 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38082 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 21 August 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

 

yeah, but that gun is for idiots who think the 90mm gun is better...

 

For 3 marking and liberal gold spam 90mm is better

brumbarr #12 Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postcommer, on 21 August 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

 

For 3 marking and liberal gold spam 90mm is better

 

No it isnt, thats just a myth.  

The 90m gun has almost 0 advantages over the 105:

  - 0,03 better acc

  -  0,01 better dispersion when turning turret

  -  80 dpm

 These advantages are not worth sacrificing 320 alpha for in any way shape or form.



HaZardeur #13 Posted 21 August 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33294 battles
  • 1,180
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
You get more pen on your T32 when my Tiger II gets "real" armor... deal ?

Derethim #14 Posted 21 August 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17499 battles
  • 1,882
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

There should be an unwritten balancing rule, that a gun with terrible, terrible penetration+fire rate, should be at the very least accurate. Not the case with this one...

For some magical reason.

 

I don't think I was every killed 1 on 1 by a T32.



AvengerOrion #15 Posted 22 August 2017 - 01:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25941 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

View PostHaZardeur, on 21 August 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

You get more pen on your T32 when my Tiger II gets "real" armor... deal ?

 

But but but...

Wargaming tried hard to find the worst built Tiger II left and measured the armour to make sure it was 'historical accurate'.

Think of the work that went into finding that rusted away hull that lost half it's armour to the elements.


Edited by AvengerOrion, 22 August 2017 - 01:45 AM.


NervosCuNervii #16 Posted 22 August 2017 - 06:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21833 battles
  • 534
  • [D57T] D57T
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013
Since nowadays the premium tanks are the same or better than the tech tree counterparts... the 120mm gun from T34 to the T32 ? Please ? Pretty please ? :harp:

Aikl #17 Posted 22 August 2017 - 07:45 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25529 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 21 August 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

I can live with the below-average penetration.

 

Accuracy is the issue. Why the F-word is the IS-3's gun more accurate?

 

For the same reason that IS-3, as a T8 heavy tank with a large, fairly high-pen gun, gets the same dispersion on turret rotation as the T-62A? :rolleyes:

STLR #18 Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30815 battles
  • 736
  • [MIND] MIND
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013
do not [edited]with rasha! , how can you expect a rashian dev to kneel before an american...specially in tier 8! =))

dex_1950 #19 Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:53 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30949 battles
  • 235
  • [HEFFY] HEFFY
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014
Buff accuracy and bit of gun handling, T-32 is good with APCR spam, accuracy is complete left down. 

commer #20 Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:51 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38082 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 21 August 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

 

No it isnt, thats just a myth.  

The 90m gun has almost 0 advantages over the 105:

  - 0,03 better acc

  -  0,01 better dispersion when turning turret

  -  80 dpm

 These advantages are not worth sacrificing 320 alpha for in any way shape or form.

 

I didn't 3 mark mine but It worked well for me. Though it was just after my caern grind




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users