Well, the T-34 also had very fast traverse. But it also has some issues.
The T-34s traverse takes time to speed up and but also takes a while to slow down, compared to a Sherman which accerlates almost immediatly to max speed and will immediatly stop when you stop the power traverse.
Combine that with no turret basket and the fast traverse is more a liability for the crew.
The same is probably true with the T-44.
Of course the turret of the T-54 is also massively heavier than either tank due to the size and armor.
It also had a rotating turret floor, which would add more weight for the traverse mechanism to move, toghether with crew standing on it.
So my guess, it rotates slower due to having much more weight to move around and they probably didn’t consider giving the traverse mechanism more power compared to previous designs.
The IS-2 also had a much slower traverse than the T-34 with a larger and heavier turret and it slowed down yet again with the IS-3, which has a turret that is probably not massively heavier due to the changes in geometry, reducing the overall profile for increased protection over the IS-2.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I think for simple game balance purposes increasing all T-54 & Chinese T-54 copy turret traverse should be at least considered. Even giving the T-54-49, T-54-51, Type 62, and Type 59 the higher traverse rate of the T-54-47 would be sufficient, honestly.
Of course, if we had the serious high rank decompression we badly need, such changes might not be as necessary. The proliferation of light tanks that fail to fuse APHE and then run around your T-54 faster than you can rotate the gun while carelessly punching through your armor is precisely where the need for faster turrets stems from.