Pre-order: T58

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
401

Are you serious? Should the armor penetration of a pre-war HEAT round be 8.3?
Many tanks with 8.0 penetration already have non-rotating HEAT rounds with 380-400 mm of penetration. What does the armor penetration of a 155 mm HEAT round have to do with it? Absolutely any armor plate, regardless of thickness, can stop it, since it’s a pre-war rotating HEAT round. Based on in-game experience, a non-rotating HEAT round will be 40-50% better than its pre-war counterparts, which can be stopped by any armor plate or poorly placed module in the path of the HEAT jet. It will only be able to destroy tanks due to the large amount of explosives in the round (pressure mechanics), not a “cyber-powerful round with 408 mm of armor penetration.” So how will it differ from the VIDAR or PzKh 2000, which have the same caliber but use high-explosive fragmentation ammunition? Furthermore, they have a very short reload time (a VIDAR with an experienced crew has a reload time of 6 seconds), suggesting that the T58 is simply more armored and less maneuverable. Furthermore, regardless of the penetration of the T58’s HEAT round, its effectiveness will be negated by various tanks equipped with composite or explosive reactive armor (ERA). (T-55AM/AMD, T-72A (used by Sweden, Germany, and Italy), MBT-70 (even without composite armor, its spaced armor can stop HEAT rounds), AMX Brenus, Strv 104, M60 RISE-P, etc.) And yes, I’m assuming your answer is something along the lines of “Well, these tanks can be targeted at vulnerable zones, where they can be guaranteed to be destroyed using the pressure mechanics.” I’ll counter: the T58 won’t be equipped with a laser rangefinder to accurately target their vulnerable zones, and the HEAT shell will have less explosive payload, so the pressure mechanics might simply not work under certain circumstances. This isn’t even true if you’re trying to target such vulnerable zones at a distance of 600 meters or more, and such distances are clearly not uncommon in the game.

With a BR 8.3, it often faces tanks with composite or ERA armor, and its HEAT shell doesn’t even penetrate weak spots and often doesn’t guarantee destruction at all. Playing with various howitzers, like the Vidar or Pzh 2000, I can be confident that by firing at a specific area of ​​a specific tank, I’m guaranteed to destroy it. Returning to the T58, it has no chance of surviving an enemy counterattack if they can’t destroy it with the first shot. And believe me, you’ll get killed in return very often. The T58 has no composite armor; it’s a tank from the post-war period, when composite or ERA was unthinkable. Most shells will send it flying back to the hangar on the first hit, since even an inexperienced player would think to hit the fighting compartment through its massive turret.

1 Like
402

P.S. If you want to evaluate how the T58 will perform at 8.3, try the M551, try using its HEAT rounds, and you’ll get a good idea of ​​how often enemies survive hits. The only difference is that the M551 offers an extremely long reload time and decent mobility.

1 Like
403

TL;DR
Pre war? What war? That comment makes 0 sense.
All those 8.0 / 8.3 tanks don’t load as fast as 2.6 secs.

Problem with it having 155mm heat, is it’s over pressure even on non kill hits, will over pressure and kill a tank.
Meaning it’s very skill less, and with even a semi decent player will be vastly OP.

Funny you mention that. The m60A2? The starship also has the same cannon. I absolutely love that tank with its Heat, it’s great! One of my favorite American vehicles with ease.
Like the T58, the M60a2 also has very trolly armor where many shots should pen but do not.
Except the load time on the m60a2 is fast higher than 2.6 seconds.

404

We aren’t asking the right questions people it gets a 155mm aphe shell with 199mm pen this will be a true monster with a 2sec reload and that kind of one shot potential it will be a truly monstrous beast

1 Like
405

Ha, it’s funny how hard it is to figure out which war the T58 was created after. Too bad you don’t want to argue. But I’ll continue.

Regarding the T58’s reload time: did I say anything against it? Of course, 2.6 seconds or even 3.6 seconds, as originally stated, is complete nonsense. But most French drum-loading tanks also have their reload times reduced to reasonable values ​​for balance reasons. So why did the developers decide to do this here? I don’t know.

The M60A2? Well, I suppose at least its stabilizer and very durable turret save it. Why did I compare it specifically to the M551? Because the Starship is protected not only by the amount of armor and the turret shape, but also by the crew positioning. Let’s not forget the laser rangefinder, since the M551 doesn’t have one, and you have to fire without one. So, the situation will be practically the same as with the M551. The T58’s shell ballistics may not be that bad, but again, the vast majority of players are already having trouble zeroing in at ranges of 600+ meters. Considering that the T58 will only have a standard rangefinder and not a laser one, we’re looking at a rather dubious tank that’s either sitting still or waiting for its victims. Is it worthy of a BR of 8.3 in this configuration? I don’t think so. Add to that the huge turret, which can be penetrated without any discomfort for anyone who doesn’t play this tank. To compare the T58 to a similar vehicle with the same BR, since you mentioned it:

M60A2:

  • Has a solid turret and excellent crew positioning.
  • Laser rangefinder.
  • Good transmission speed for a standard M60, which it easily matches.

The T58 lacks all of the above. The M60A2’s problems can be discussed another time, as it’s far from ideal for this battle rating, but all of the above truly saves it. The T58, however, has none of these advantages. Its only advantage is its reload speed. That’s all.

1 Like
406

I’m not arguing, im merely stating facts the vehicle is in fact OP.
and needs massive br changes if it’s coming into the game as is imagine if it was Russian? The forums would quite literally be on fire.

It’s also weird you’re not specifying which war you’re referring to.
The closest counter part year wise, is the obj.279. They are roughly 10 months apart.

to answer why the developers keep giving USA tank their true reload is due to the low player skill of that nation

lol. Solid turret armor…? On the starship… what reality are you in?
image

Both the m60a2 and m103 have trolly af hulls.
And the m60 mobility is meh, not bad not good. M103 is only slightly slower, so not really a difference.

  • M60a2 has a stab and LRF
  • T58 has what, 3x the reload speed at least? Prob more velocity too given the barrel length.
407

While you’re still trying to figure out which post-war period we’re talking about (yes, the Object 279 definitely qualifies), I’ll say that if you’re judging a player’s skill level by the nation tree, you’re clearly following a certain stereotype about the game. Players of all nations (the vast majority) are generally quite low-skilled; it’s not just a matter of which country they play as—the USA, Germany, or some other. Nations often form alliances with each other, which doesn’t stop them from winning together. But that’s irrelevant; I’ll simply say that I’m skeptical of the idea that “player skill depends on the nation tree chosen.”

Yes, my friend, in case you didn’t know, the M60A2 can sometimes withstand hits to the front of the turret; that’s truly astounding. I hope we’re talking about the same tank? :)
Okay, that’s beside the point, but since you’re nitpicking, I’ll say that the M60A2’s turret is clearly harder to penetrate than the T58’s under the same conditions. I understand that it has an incredible reload speed, and I understand that with such a speed, it truly deserves its 8.3 BR, but nevertheless, a rhetorical question arises: how often will the T58 be able to use its reload speed advantage? I think everyone should answer that for themselves.

I just want to say that I hope our conversation leads to something. At the very least, it’s better to properly configure the vehicle before introducing it into the main game. And considering it’s a premium vehicle, even more so. We’ll keep an eye on the changes.

1 Like
408

Huh? U have a differnt MM working for you?
As long as the MM only allows maximum of 4 Players per higest BR of that bracked its statistically more likely to get a uptier. U cant change that, even if you believe in it really hard. Especially in a squad that you saied you favour.

Btw, in case anyone want to calculate, game has in the techtree this amount of tanks - amount of played games: (BR-Amount of Tanks-Amount of Played games August so far:

Spoiler

6.3 - 36 - 5.312.111
6.7 - 46 - 9.050.043
7.0 - 29 - 4.784.963
7.3 - 21 - 5.457.990
7.7 - 45 - 8.949.283
8.0 - 57 - 1.580.305
8.3 - 37 - 3.860.043
8.7 - 32 - 6.437.332
9.0 - 35 - 5.006.504
9.3 - 45 - 5.168.136
9.7 - 30 - 2.438.766
10.0 - 22 - 4.327.261
10.3 - 32 - 4.994.834

edit* nvm AI did the trick, but take it with a grain of salt, as no one really knows how aggressive the MM searches for a Match the longer you wait: (went way to deep for that lol)

Spoiler->without giving AI many rules, basically the odds if enough players would always be abailable and no nation restriction
BR range Solo @ 8.3
7.3–8.3 (downtier) 12%
7.7–8.7 18%
8.0–9.0 25%
8.3–9.3 (full uptier) 45%
Spoiler -> With Popularity Charts, a MM that gets more aggressive the longer you wait and activity charts per Hour 
It won´t be 100% accurate, as no one really knows how the MM-Timecontrains rules
are and how aggressive it looks for a matchstart. Also AI thinks every match needs
16 Player per Team, a 10 player team chart is at the bottom. And AI dosnt know
that other Squads excist for the first 3 charts.

At 20:00 EU with Teamsize 16
Scenario   | 7.3–8.3 | 7.7–8.7 | 8.0–9.0 | 8.3–9.3
-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------
Solo (1)   | 15.4%   | 34.4%   | 22.8%   | 27.5%
Duo (2)    | 15.2%   | 34.3%   | 22.9%   | 27.6%
Trio (3)   | 15.0%   | 34.2%   | 22.8%   | 28.0%
Squad of 4 | 14.8%   | 33.9%   | 23.0%   | 28.3%

At 02:00 EU with Teamsize 16
Scenario   | 7.3–8.3 | 7.7–8.7 | 8.0–9.0 | 8.3–9.3
-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------
Solo (1)   | 14.6%   | 28.9%   | 23.2%   | 33.3%
Duo (2)    | 14.4%   | 28.7%   | 23.4%   | 33.5%
Trio (3)   | 14.1%   | 29.1%   | 23.2%   | 33.6%
Squad of 4 | 13.8%   | 29.2%   | 23.3%   | 33.6%

At 20:00 EU with Teamsize 10
Scenario   | 7.3–8.3 | 7.7–8.7 | 8.0–9.0 | 8.3–9.3
-----------+---------+---------+---------+--------
Solo (1)   | 16.4%   | 32.5%   | 23.8%   | 27.2%
Duo (2)    | 16.2%   | 32.3%   | 23.9%   | 27.5%
Trio (3)   | 16.0%   | 32.2%   | 24.0%   | 27.8%
Squad of 4 | 15.7%   | 32.1%   | 24.1%   | 28.1%

8.3 at 20:00, team size = 12 per team (12v12), assuming among the other 
players in queue 5% are in duos, 3% in trios, 2% in quads
Scenario   | 7.3–8.3 | 7.7–8.7 | 8.0–9.0 | 8.3–9.3
-----------+---------+---------+---------+--------
Solo (1)   | 15.5%   | 33.5%   | 23.3%   | 27.8%
Duo (2)    | 15.3%   | 33.3%   | 23.4%   | 28.0%
Trio (3)   | 15.1%   | 33.2%   | 23.4%   | 28.3%
Squad of 4 | 14.9%   | 33.0%   | 23.5%   | 28.6%

With Nations and the popularity of them, 12v12, 8.3 at 20:00 EU with other
Squads excisting, whole squad USA:
Scenario   | 7.3–8.3 | 7.7–8.7 | 8.0–9.0 | 8.3–9.3
-----------+---------+---------+---------+--------
Solo (1)   | 15.3%   | 33.3%   | 23.4%   | 28.0%
Duo (2)    | 15.1%   | 33.2%   | 23.4%   | 28.3%
Trio (3)   | 14.9%   | 33.0%   | 23.5%   | 28.6%
Squad of 4 | 14.7%   | 32.9%   | 23.6%   | 28.9%

I wonder myself how accurate this really is, didnt expected it such a “little” impact on playing in a squad, hence my 5% players play duo estimation could be hughly off.

But at the end, saying that u belive 8.3 is mostly getting downtiers… well what do u call a downtier? U call 7.7 a downtier from 8.3? Could also be a uptier to 8.7 at the same time…
but even if we say 7.3 and 7.7 are downtiers, its still more likely to get get a 9.0 or 9.3 match.

Well T58 is hard to compare to anything ingame, closest call would likely be an Somua, but Somua reloads slower, drives faster and and has as less armor. While sitting at 7.7.

Ammo and gun isnt everythink u need on a tank, otherwise Obj 120 would be higher BR… but its not cause the ammo is unreliable, u die on every plane, have long reload and no gun depression. And even the HEAT of the obj 120 is unreliable even though it is much more powerfull what the T58 will use.

with sub 3 sec reload it can do a lot, but with that hugh chassi, basically not enough armor against any 8.0+ non autocannon and a really not fast Hull and “only” 8 degree gun depression with a low mounted gun… it will likely most of the time end somewhere in the backline, trying to kill enemys from far away, or sit ouring a courner in the city. Its unlikely you will see alot of them in your flank, where the sub 3 sec reload could actually be insane with a more reliable ammo.

2 Likes
409

Rinhord: with sub 3 sec reload it can do a lot, but with that hugh chassi, basically not enough armor against any 8.0+ non autocannon and a really not fast Hull and “only” 8 degree gun depression with a low mounted gun… it will likely most of the time end somewhere in the backline, trying to kill enemys from far away, or sit ouring a courner in the city. Its unlikely you will see alot of them in your flank, where the sub 3 sec reload could actually be insane with a more reliable ammo.

I completely agree with most of your comments. As I’ve already said, the T58’s reload time needs to be reduced to a reasonable value to bring its BR down to 8.0 (the initial value on the development server). Even taking into account the high-caliber gun, a “balanced” reload time of around 6-7 seconds, or even 8 seconds, would probably be appropriate for a BR of 8.0. I simply don’t see situations in which the T43’s hull mobility would allow it to take advantage of a 2.6-second reload. Such situations will certainly exist, but I don’t think they will be frequent. Furthermore, the tank’s very small magazine capacity (6 rounds) will force it to frequently idle while reloading. I’d even say that such a short reload time would be a drawback for me, as I sometimes waste ammunition thoughtlessly. :)

1 Like
410

Somua doesn’t have 400mm pen

“Ammo and gun isnt everythink u need on a tank, otherwise Obj 120 would be higher BR… but its not cause the ammo is unreliable, u die on every plane, have long reload and no gun depression. And even the HEAT of the obj 120 is unreliable even though it is much more powerfull what the T58 will use.”

Even tanks can .50 cal the Obj.120

Except the Obj.120 is 8.0 with:

  • 10 sec auto loader
  • no stab
  • no armor / survivability
  • no gun depression
  • No mgs

The T58 Has all that,
while being less mobile,
and nearly 4x the fire rate…
Oh and! 36°/s turret traverse.

People continually forget that light tanks get into battle first anyways. They engage targets first. More often than not your own teams light tanks will either pave the way or get destroyed regardless, you know where the enemy is.

1 Like
411

TL;DR

I’ve played every nation. So I do have a very valid opinion on how each player base plays their nation.

You have hardly played half the nations. LOL

412

Again, believe what u want. U habe been the oppositions and fire starter in many forum topics now and u never came out to be correct.

Not sure whats going on in your mind to say that with all the infos we know so far you woumd think itd balanced at 8.7 with a 6 sec reload. Its just silly. U little silly boy

3 Likes
413

what br is the t58?

414

8.3

1 Like
415

When he sees he’s wrong, he simply resorts to provocations, which are pointless to respond to, as then the meaning and context of the conversation are lost. But I’ve already said everything and I simply have nothing more to add.

1 Like
417

The pen is only equivalent to 6.0s panther’s ap, only thing is when you managed to pen then the turret definitely flying to space and land somewhere in Bolivia. The thing about aphe is as long as the explosive filler set off, it’s almost always guaranteed KO so it is not going to make much difference compare to when your obj 906 with it’s puny 85mm shows up behind three unaware enemies. The reload timer is very attractive indeed, the lack of stab in that br is a big turn off unfortunately.

1 Like
418

Please point out where I have ever done that?

419

I’d rather have no stab and a 2.6 sec auto loader w/ 36° turret traverse a sec.

The obj. 906 is nice and all with its stab, but the gun laying is a bit dismal.

420

Something tells me gaijin didnt give this thing the same HEAT post pen effects as most HEAT gets and more similar to the HEAT-FS system.

Deffo going up in BR lmao. I hope gaijin give the T54 autoloader the real RoF and bump it to join, will be too funi.

421

In fact, as I mentioned, this tank’s gameplay will focus exclusively on stabilized vehicles, which are more maneuverable, fire more powerful shells from smaller-caliber guns, and, naturally, have a lower silhouette than the T58. With stats of 8.3, it’s useless even with an extremely short reload time of 2.6 seconds, as this tank is used exclusively as a passive vehicle, and reloading is critical when multiple targets are moving towards you from behind a building or cover. Other situations:

  • It can’t hit the enemy’s side due to its extremely low mobility, particularly its low top speed of 35 km/h. Yes, it accelerates quickly, but its top speed is low. It turns very poorly.

  • Its shells are very weak and specific; it feels like the HEAT shell has been nerfed in terms of damage. Sometimes even such a fast reload doesn’t save it. Single hits are extremely rare.

  • The lack of a stabilizer and extremely poor gun stabilization due to the turret “oscillating” with a battle rating of 8.3.

Solution: Reduce the reload time to approximately 4-5 seconds and return the battle rating to 8.0. This will make the tank ideal for the T54E1.

I am very disappointed with the developers’ attitude towards the community. Initially, there was a vote in which people asked the developers to introduce this vehicle as a standard model, but in the end, even in the premium configuration, it was given a battle rating of 8.3 due to the reduced reload time, which is simply illogical, given the priority of the changes. The reload time in the first iteration on the development server was 3.6 seconds, which was still too good. Why didn’t you make it 4.6 or 5.3 seconds, keeping his BR at 8.0??? I’ll continue testing this technique in battles, but the necessary changes are obvious.