Jump to content


Buff the god dam Type62 Ammorack,


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

Search_Warrant #1 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:21 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,320
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

Im getting very pissed off constantly getting 1 shot ammoracked BY EVERYTHING in this F'ing tank. side shots are always 1 shot death. 1 mistake and your dead. thats just stupid.

 

Buff the GOD DAM AMMORACK. is getting set on fire frontally every OTHER shot not Fing good enough? seriously buff the dam Ammorack.



TheWarrener #2 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2040 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
How about they actually sell type 62 

Baldrickk #3 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29031 battles
  • 12,855
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
I suggest getting shot less :trollface:

_EXODUZ_ #4 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34165 battles
  • 1,935
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014
Dude how about you stop your whine threads? Are you really expecting someone from the balance department to read it?

Pandabird #5 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:28 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33973 battles
  • 4,517
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
I play it as a passive spotter with rear turned ready to bolt off if lit.

Come to think of it i rarely get ammoracked or burned when shot from behind


Try reversing into the enemy lol

Balc0ra #6 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:30 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,399
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
It's Chinese. Not many of them are known for their solid ammo rack on higher tiers. Nor is the Bulldog or IS-3. It's not an ideal tank to train new crews in unless you have the loader skill to compensate for it.

Aikl #7 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,013
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I've always found the engine to be more of a problem. If any shot hits the engine and passes the saving throw, it'll get damaged. Heck, most guns >75mm will actually destroy it. Flimsy ammorack (and stock engine) is kind of a Chinese theme, though, as is getting set on fire frontally, I guess.

 

In related news, why haven't anyone gifted you the EVEN yet, Search? :P 

 

 


Edited by Aikl, 16 February 2018 - 06:35 PM.


TsundereWaffle #8 Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25832 battles
  • 10,736
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
hm, I haven't really had issues with it while playing mine

Dava_117 #9 Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:00 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17589 battles
  • 2,188
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Guess putting the fuel tanks just behind the frontal armour and putting the main ammorack just behind it was not a good idea! :trollface:

WindSplitter1 #10 Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14295 battles
  • 1,720
  • [RYNO] RYNO
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Isn't that thing a scaled down version of the T-54/T-55, which, in turn has fuel and ammo in the front?

 

I wanted one for myself because I can't stand having a Radio Man on the Type 64. It's pretty good but the extra crew member sure slows things down.

 

Looks that I'm gonna have to pass it though.



haha_ufail #11 Posted 17 February 2018 - 03:40 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21195 battles
  • 422
  • [CHLHW] CHLHW
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011

id want the engine HP increased, the amount of times ive died to the engine totaly shutting off is not even funny

 



Jam_in_a_Tank #12 Posted 17 February 2018 - 04:08 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14885 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 16 February 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

Im getting very pissed off constantly getting 1 shot ammoracked BY EVERYTHING in this F'ing tank. side shots are always 1 shot death. 1 mistake and your dead. thats just stupid.

 

Buff the GOD DAM AMMORACK. is getting set on fire frontally every OTHER shot not Fing good enough? seriously buff the dam Ammorack.

I guess u havent play the T92, otherwise you would open a topic ''buff the engine health..'' well what can i say, type 62... wish i could have it tho..:)

 

View PostTheWarrener, on 16 February 2018 - 06:23 PM, said:

How about they actually sell type 62 

gimme dat, take ma money :popcorn:


Edited by Jam_in_a_Tank, 17 February 2018 - 04:08 AM.


Coldspell #13 Posted 17 February 2018 - 04:23 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18583 battles
  • 2,095
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

I've not had this issue with the ammorack.... and I play fairly aggressively in mine.

Obvious question is obvious but do you have safe stowage? I have nearly 400 battles in mine and I've never noticed an issue with ammo wrack damage let alone getting 1 shot ammoracked.

 

Tbh I don't get lit on fire much either so maybe I am just amazingly lucky.



Search_Warrant #14 Posted 17 February 2018 - 04:45 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,320
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostJam_in_a_Tank, on 17 February 2018 - 03:08 AM, said:

I guess u havent play the T92, otherwise you would open a topic ''buff the engine health..'' well what can i say, type 62... wish i could have it tho..:)

 

gimme dat, take ma money :popcorn:

 

I dont get engine damaged much in my T92 oddly enough. no idea why. but i do own that trash heap with a tier 5 gun, id say tier 6 gun by 85M gun is better than it.

Baldrickk #15 Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:47 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29031 battles
  • 12,855
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 17 February 2018 - 04:45 AM, said:

 

I dont get engine damaged much in my T92 oddly enough. no idea why. but i do own that trash heap with a tier 5 gun, id say tier 6 gun by 85M gun is better than it.

Really? Ok it gets a little lower alpha and basically the same DPM, but it is a light tank. 

Have you seen the gun handling stats on your gun though?

 



Search_Warrant #16 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,320
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostBaldrickk, on 17 February 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

Really? Ok it gets a little lower alpha and basically the same DPM, but it is a light tank. 

Have you seen the gun handling stats on your gun though?

 

 

and the accuracy it still misses everything.  the guns pathetic.



Baldrickk #17 Posted 17 February 2018 - 10:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29031 battles
  • 12,855
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 17 February 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

 

and the accuracy it still misses everything.  the guns pathetic.

It's 0.01 less accurate fully aimed than the T-34-85 or the type 62. And much more so on the move...



shane73tank #18 Posted 17 February 2018 - 10:21 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26312 battles
  • 1,926
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
To be honest I don’t find I get excessive ammo rack damage in mine, it’s a nice tank , it’s a light so module damage is a big feature unfortunately, look at it this way search - at least you have one 

Edited by shane73tank, 17 February 2018 - 10:47 AM.


jabster #19 Posted 17 February 2018 - 10:31 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,689
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
To be honest the OP could save a lot of time creating these whining threads if they just listed all the tanks that they didn’t think where either UP, OP or just plain broken.

Rati_Festa #20 Posted 17 February 2018 - 12:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40173 battles
  • 786
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
The whole point of the type62 and lights in general is not to get shot. Love my type 62, it definately doesnt need a buff. Its engine is its weak point not the ammo rack imo




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users