Jump to content


obyekt 140 vs T62A

obj 140 T62A

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

b4it_There_Was_OgreNinja #1 Posted 17 October 2017 - 03:34 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 950 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    06-12-2017
Is wargaming going to change anything on the T62A? Atm its worse than the 140, im liking the 140 buff because there is  no more reds in tds slamming your turret roof with their skill compensators. But the T62A's turrert profile is worse and easier to heat pen the front its slower and bigger so wtf, why should i play it when i can snapshot on the move with my 140? :playing:

Noobkiller3759 #2 Posted 17 October 2017 - 03:36 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17214 battles
  • 127
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

"I like this med because it's fast and can't be penned by TDs shooting gold"
Does that sound balanced to you? Obj 140 did not need any buff.

I agree T-62A is just worse now.



Aikl #3 Posted 17 October 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25530 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I think it was stated that the Soviet meds were supposed to become more 'diverse'. My initial thought was that the T-62A would get a larger gun (the non-A production variant has a smoothbore 115mm gun), but after the 430U sneak peek that seems unlikely.

Maybe treating the T10 tanks according to the T-54 guns they stem from is what's gonna happen. That would fit well with the apparent need for lines to have consistent playing style. T-62A would become a more accurate version of the 140 with less DPM and better penetration. Could be interesting, I guess?



Derethim #4 Posted 17 October 2017 - 03:59 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostAikl, on 17 October 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

I think it was stated that the Soviet meds were supposed to become more 'diverse'. My initial thought was that the T-62A would get a larger gun (the non-A production variant has a smoothbore 115mm gun), but after the 430U sneak peek that seems unlikely.

Maybe treating the T10 tanks according to the T-54 guns they stem from is what's gonna happen. That would fit well with the apparent need for lines to have consistent playing style. T-62A would become a more accurate version of the 140 with less DPM and better penetration. Could be interesting, I guess?

 

And the object 140 could get a turret nerf :trollface:

Really feels like i'm trying to pen a heavy

 

Agreed on the 115mm, would be interesting. We don't even have a 115mm in the game yet.



Aikl #5 Posted 17 October 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25530 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostDerethim, on 17 October 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

(...)

Agreed on the 115mm, would be interesting. We don't even have a 115mm in the game yet.

 

WG traditionally has drawn the line at smoothbore guns, missiles, composite armor and ERA - though it's not like there's much trouble in simply ignoring the existence of missiles on e.g. the Sheridan (the Shillelagh wasn't used in combat outside i.e. target practice in Desert Storm, though).

 

Largely keeping the tank as-is with a very accurate 115mm, ~360-damage gun could make it decently unique. That would allow for a bit more penetration as well. Would go well with Tajj's proposed Leopard 1 buff - speed and gun depression vs armor, with the edge to the Leopard 1 in long-range combat and shot trading.

 

(Yes, 360 damage is 'weird', though it's not like current damage values aren't largely arbitrary anyway. The main idea is to differentiate - I for one like the idea of not having 'clone wars'.)


Edited by Aikl, 17 October 2017 - 04:12 PM.


ID_100 #6 Posted 17 October 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 25742 battles
  • 109
  • [IMAGE] IMAGE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014


TestBed_PL #7 Posted 18 October 2017 - 09:46 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17695 battles
  • 131
  • [GLONK] GLONK
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011

View PostID_100, on 17 October 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

 

Looks like someone slams gun mantlets in his broken TD's :)

Laiskamato #8 Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:40 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45865 battles
  • 361
  • [KYS] KYS
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014
T-62A is fine as it is now.

Noo_Noo #9 Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:09 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21646 battles
  • 2,040
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
I bought the T62a a short time ago. I know everyone recommends the OBJ 140 but I fancied being different. Anyway I have the 140 unlocked so not a massive work up to swap over or buy it when I have the credits available. 

For me, and I'm not doing very well in it to be honest but it feels a little like the T54 mod 1 before its recent buff. The gun is fine and works well, Turret is solid but it's a bit sluggish off the mark. Credit earning wise I scrape by in it unless I have one of those games where there's big armour demand a bit of HEAT spam. 

the difficulty with it is finding those hull down positions where your mediocre gun depression still works and your hull is hidden. When playing tier 9/10 and plenty of tier 8's for that matter your hull is a juicy weak spot. Because of that there's an extremely fine line between being aggressive and not over extending. Same can be said for many tanks to be honest. 

Edited by Noo_Noo, 19 October 2017 - 10:13 AM.


Spurtung #10 Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:15 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLaiskamato, on 19 October 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

T-62A is fine as it is now.

 

It is, but it's the 140's changes that make it superior to the 62A




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users