From 25°/s to 10°/s.
I find the T-44s 25°/s more questionable than the T-54s 10°/s.
From Tankograd Blog:
The turret could be driven by the MPB-52 electric motor at a minimum speed of 0.1 degrees per second and at a maximum speed of 13 degrees per second. For comparison, the MB-20G electric turret traverse motor of the T-34-85 allowed a maximum traverse speed of 25-30 degrees per second or a minimum speed of 12 degrees per second, with the option of a reduction to 1.5-2.0 degrees per second.
Also:
Unlike a modern electric or hydraulic system, it took some time for the MPB-52 motor to accelerate the turret to its maximum speed.
Hence the average maximum traverse speed is going to be lower than 13°/s.
Since the turret of the T-54 is heavier, it probably took more time to accelerate to max. speed.
I think the Shermans had a maximum speed of 24°/s but a 360° rotation results in 21°/s.
2 Likes
how is that relevant to what i wrote?
apart from the Type 59 being a T-54 with a stabilizer, so with a major advantage?
Bacause 906 is terrible and should not go up. T-54 can preform better than it.
The 906 probably has the best 85mm APHE in the game, on top of having 4 seconds reload timer it also pens more than the 100mm bro. I wouldn’t want the 906 shows up behind me and my teammates, he will have enough time to kill four of us before we could even turn our turret/hull lol
1 Like
I guess that vehicle doesnt work for me then, I have sub 0.5 K/D. Maybe skill issue of some something else because I have like 1.5 K/D on Type 59 (Basically T-54)
I also dogshit at it 0.8 currently lol but I would admit that vehicle has a lot of potential, haven’t played 8.0 much these days, I have very few matches in it was previously used to rush caps, later I’ll take it out of the garage for a spin and see if I can do anything with it. It could reverse as quickly as moving forward, having STAB and also reload twice as quickly as T-54 that isn’t aced, those numbers are indeed very nice, one way to improve the KD is we play it like a rat.
true
It’s very strong, but has some disadvantages to work around. Mainly the size and lack of gun depression. This limits the spots you can safely use, which is especially important for a fast, flanking tank like the 906. But, if you play it carefully, and make it to the flank, you’re a nightmare. The combination of a very punchy APHE round and a 4 second autoloader means you can knock people out from fairly comfortable angles very quickly. Even when you can’t get into a position to make your APHE work, you have HEAT, which while not very damaging, will get through almost any armor you can see, while the autoloader makes up for the poor damage somewhat.
You have the speed both forwards and reverse, so you can position aggressively (so long as you keep the size and gun depression in mind) and quickly get out of bad situations when needed.
It’s very much a high skill floor, high skill ceiling vehicle like the Char 25t (Of which it’s basically just a better version at the same BR). If you know what to do with that speed, know where to position yourself, and know how to flank effectively, the 906 will pay out big.
2 Likes
As a general rule, the kills depend on the effectiveness of the vehicle, the object 905 in practical purposes would have a similar effectiveness to the Type 59 since both have a stabilizer, the Type has more armor but the object recharges in 4 seconds. But there are many cases in which that luck makes the difference. For example, I have more kills and fewer loses with the Magach 3 than with the shot kal alef, having the shot kal alef stabilizer and better APDS, and using both together.
1 Like
I tend to preform better with vehicles that are more forgiving in survivability.
T-54s without a stabilizer at 8.0 are just miserable.
Absolutely no reason why the Swedish T-54 is 8.0 and not 7.7.
2 Likes
They buffed the reload and put them to 8.0.
If they overperformed at 7.7, they should have nerfed their reload instead of pretending they are equal to 1960s vehicles.
1 Like
The ammo choices. Plus the T-54’s would stomp 6.7’s.
Honestly it’s a compression issue. We have unstabilised and stabilised T-54’s at the same goddamn BR.
2 Likes
Not really. They don’t have much mobility advantage, just armor while the traverse is much worse.
If APCR wasn’t gimped for the most part, a lot of tanks could easily handle it.
A T-54 has immense problems to take out a Ferdinand from the front, by just using APHE rounds.
If it didn’t have APDS or HEAT it couldn’t do much against a Jagdtiger either.
Historically the T-54 was just what the T-34 was. Good armor but lacking in firepower.
In the medium tank role the T-44-100 achives practically the same with slightly better mobility, much better turret traverse but slower RoF.
Any light tank from 6.3 onwards can penetrate the T-54s armor while having the advantage in mobilty and target acquisition.
1 Like
Go look at the cupola vs APHE. A tiger 2 rips the T54 apart in a single shot reliably from the front. You also get a bunch of early HEAT throwers around 6.7. The turret rotation alone would make it a vulnerable tank to any sort of urban engagement.
3 Likes
Its ammo choices are no more extravagant than multiple vehicles at BRs between 6.7-7.7.
And the absolutely atrocious gun handling, with some of the slowest turret traverse speeds and the worst gun depression of -4 for any medium tank around that bracket (or really all brackets) doesn’t help, either.
I think the Type 59 is a perfectly good fit for 8.0 due to its stabilized nature, but the non-stabilized T-54s such as the Swedish and Israeli ones would be perfectly decent at 7.7. I personally quite dislike when someone instantly defaults to scenarios involving a full downtier when it comes to BR changes - no, the T-54s would not stomp 6.7s. They would barely see 6.7s. And even in a full downtier - the vehicles it would be seeing would also be 7.0 and 7.3 vehicles.
Many vehicles at even 6.3 have HEATFS and APDS that can very easily slice right through the hull and turret - or, if anything - easily go through the turret cheek which is the prominent spot to shot a T-54. Not to mention the hatch. And that’s, of course, specifically talking about a frontal situation in a game where flanking is the preferred method for a good player.
2 Likes
What I hate the most is people instantly defaulting to vehicles it would meet in a full downtier.
Like - whenever people would advocate for the Maus being moved to 7.3,
Spoiler
(I personally thought it was just right at 7.7, but since they nerfed all the internal plates to 5mm and made it extremely easy to overpressure, I think it could go down to 7.0 and still be sub-optimal)
IMMEDIATELY you would hear people talking about those POOR 6.3 VEHICLES!! As if the BRs of 6.7 and 7.0, which had HEATFS slingers even back then, much less now - wouldn’t also be in the rotation in a 6.3-7.3 match. It’s like only the worst vehicles at the lowest BR matter, even though they would only be a small portion of a game which is made up of 4 individual BRs to create a range of 0.0-1.0.
And even then - flanking was always preferred. Bombing even more so, for extremely slow and large vehicles such as the Tortoise, T95, and Maus.
I disagree with many of your BR changes.
The Maus at 7.0 is too low, and it would face too many tanks that can barely kill it.
The Ho-Ri production and prototype shouldn’t go below 6.3.
The T-26E5 would be unbelievably broken at 6.3 considering it is the best 6.7 brawling tank. I don’t how anyone would think it is overtiered. It is slow, but its manoeuvrability is super good.
The IS-2 '43 should be 5.7 like it used to be, and the '44 shouldn’t be below 6.0. They didn’t need to be changed from where they were last year.
So a Tiger II 105 would be a higher BR than the Maus? That isn’t balanced at all.
We just need decompression, not moving already not terrible vehicles lower so they don’t face lots of HEAT rounds.
I think you underestimate them by a great deal.
Infact these vehicles are currently perfectly balanced. (For the most part)
If you lower them by 0.3 or even 0.7 they would become nearly invulnerable for the majority of vehicles they fight, unless they get uptiered.
It’s not very balanced when one vehicle of the same BR can just point and click another vehicle out of existance while the other can at most disable their gun while lower BRs can barely penetrate them from the side.
The only vehicle that I would change is the IS-3, which I put at 7.0 but nerfing it’s reload by a couple of seconds, maybe just to match the IS-2. Or put it at 6.7 with a big nerf in RoF, since the IS-3s is just a night mare to be a loader in.
Historically the IS-3 sucked. But I would also do the same with the small turreted T-34s, which perform way better than they have any right to.