I didn’t have a bad time in either the Type 59 or the Type 69 once I got used to them (I played until I spaded them, and it took a long time as I didn’t have a premium account back then).
But you can tell that I had a slightly lower K/D and winrate in the Type 69 even though the Type 69 has a far better turret traverse (biggest flaw of the Type 59) and more horsepower. And that was definitely because of that shell.
The shell on the Type 69 is really bad. It’s not modeled like M728 and it has a horrendous dropoff.
(penetration is only 170mm at 1km). It was quite the pain to use, and a lot less fun than the APHE of the Type 59.
Keep in mind that I played these vehicles a long time ago - when the PUMA released at ~8.3 or something, along with the still very undertiered Turm III. And before a lot of vehicles around 7.0-9.0 went up, so I had FAR worse matchmaking than these tanks do today. Today, they must be a lot better.
I agreed considering most 8.0 are just 7.3 figting 8.3 and 8.7 now. But for some reason i do better at 8.0 while still using the aphe ( haven’t unlocked the apds yet) lol, probly cuz there are more lightly armored tank, i also brought the t-44-100 and did suprisingly well too. I do play it like a slower light tank so maybe that helps as well.
From 30 degrees to 60 degrees the APDS round drops ~65% of its pen. the APFSDS drops 35%. Meaning past 60 degrees that APDS shell is going to lose pen to the point that it is bouncing off even MBT UFPs, LFSs, or roofs. The APFSDS is going to be >100 pen even at 70 degrees. With the leo being the benchmark 8.0 tank and the many ifvs around the BR, i’ll take the round that reliably pens angles and has better postpen.
Turns out, reading the stat card of a round is more than just reading ‘hur… this number bigger’.
People don’t understand that if two shells penetrate the same amount at 60 degrees, but one shell has lower pen at 0 degrees - that actually means it will perform better at angles above 60 degrees.
Less pen flat can be “more” in some ways. Since it works like a linear function.
The Tiger and T-34-85 shells are perfect examples of this.
Chances are most tanks will just go through the T-54s armor at 8.0 anyway, so a T-44-100 with better mobility and much better turret traverse speed is the better pick anyway.
Of course the T-54 armor can be effective in downtiers but against the armor is really nothing special compared to 7.7 heavy tanks that are much stronger in downtiers.
If it wasn’t for APDS or HEAT-FS the T-54 couldn’t even touch them from the front.
Type69 apfsds has no difficulty with any of those UFPs, but your preview shows otherwise. The marder especially is confusing since it shows 61 effective resistance vs 194 pen in the case of the apfsds. And clicking shows the round penetrating every time. Not only that, the previews show signficiantly better postpen for the apfsds in every case.
Finally, try an angle >60 degrees. Most of the chieftan mk3/5 UFP bounces the T54’s APDS where the Type69s apfsds goes through. The equivalent armor disparity is hilariously different.
Note the huge green blot in the middle of 906. That seems to be invisible optics poking through the solid armor and ruining it, classic case of terrible modeling lmao
Despite being aimed at the 906’s water flap (or whatever it is called exactly) which adds an extra 5mm steel plate, the APDS goes straight through. Actually seems that it will go through at any angle and getting it to ricochet off is near impossible.
Curiously this seems to be somewhat right, the APFSDS can’t penetrate a chieftain at range though. The game says chance of penetration is low but looking at the shell stats it’s simply impossible and shot simulation consistently shows 0 damage
There is almost no round IN THE GAME that regularly penetrates at 77-80 degrees. Thats what the ricoshet chance numbers are on every round. The initial screenshots were not at those angles. They are bugged.
500m you can pen the chieftan through the ufp with the APFSDS but not the APDS of the T54 (when you aren’t trying to look at it from 77+ degree angles… like damn near no one would). And thats just an example. A lot of other tanks are going to be generating >60 degree angles through horizontal angling which is where you start seeing a big difference.
But all of this is getting off topic. The Type 69 has a similar solid shot to the T54 but both have the option of HEAT rounds. Except the Type 69’s HEAT is better and the tank chassis has NONE of the disadvantages of the T54. Unless you REALLY want to use 240 pen APHE at 8.0, the Type 69 is an ENORMOUS amount better than the T54. Its like comparing a T95E1 with a Chieftan Mk5.
That’s the kind of angle you get by simply shooting at the frontal plate of many vehicles, and why we might aim at something else if we don’t have something like an ATGM to punch through it.
The difference between the HEATFS is actually unnoticeable, but sure I guess the shell’s initial velocity is higher and penetration is 10mm better. Type 69’s main advantage is definitely the turret that makes it a great HEAT slinger, if 8.0~10.0 wasn’t the ultracompressed hellscape that it is, it could be put above T54s/Type 59 without any issues.
This is literally the only reason I ever bring Type 59 to 8.0, the russian APCBC is insanely good. This might change if APHE rounds are finally reworked
I haven’t played either. This is purely based off the stats of the things on the vehcles. That said, even though APDS has lackluster post pen, I think the fact that it penetrates better at any and every angle compared to the APFSDS of the Type 69 excuses the argument that the post-pen is better on the Type 69.
Yes, but there is little argument for the opinion that the APFSDS for the 69 is better than the -54’s APDS. I think the type 69 could be moved up if anything, but 219 MM of penetration actually does detriment the effectiveness of the 69 quite a bit, or at least I would assume so If fighting medium tanks that have around that amount of armor anyways. I don’t think the argument that the T32E1 should be at the same BR as the T-54 will ever stand up, leading to a kind of zone where there is nowhere to put it. The tanks at 7.7 are worse and, apparently, the tanks at 8.0 are better. Again, I hate to say it, but decompression is the solution.
I don’t think there has ever been an argument for the T32E1 ever staying at 7.7. Its been a point of contention since GF came out. But thats a different topic.
