Hmm? Nah they’re fine where they are. They’re in as good place a place as can be right now and there’s no need to move them.
1 Like
It’s the other way around: the M-51 should be moved up to 6.7 due to having very good HEAT-FS on a comparable hull.
3 Likes
JSDF tanks fights even against Godzilla, so let the BR as it is.
W H E E Z E
The ST series as a whole and Type 61 kick the absolute dog out the M-51 in every regard with the only exception being frontal armor defensive capability against auto cannons.
They fire HEATFS instead of regular HEAT, which has far better velocity and armor penetration perimeters. The fact that the M-51 uses 105mm over 90mm is a minimal point in that regard as the OCC 105 FL - Which is REGULAR HEAT btw - is simply inferior to the M431 and even M438.
Let’s not forget that the M-51 has absolutely horrible gun handling coupled with it’s awful mobility. Unless the M-51 is already posted up in a position or the ST/Type 61 player is awful, the ST/Type 61 will always win in a general " see first, shoot first " scenario.
It’s the afternoon but it’s way too early for this. You’ve gotta be trolling lol.
1 Like
Velocity, sure. Penetration isn’t even close and the 105mm will have more post pen. And on top of that, the 105mm somehow has the same reload rate as the 90mm despite weighing almost twice as much.
2 Likes
HEATFS has better pen parameters because of better shell trajectory compared to standard HEAT. Post pen between the two in-game isn’t much different so it’s mostly an irrelevant point.
Also, the ST/Type 61 have better reloads than the M-51in-game. Not sure where you’re getting your info saying they’re the same.
I don’t understand the thought process of its creation Giant gun and then only fires heat he and smoke not a single kinetic shell
What a Waste of something that looks like a good Gun
Nah, it’s pretty balanced IMO
From what I found, the French army were only relying on that HEAT shell at the time so the rifling of the gun was given a slow spinning rate. This made it unsuitable for firing APDS.
1 Like
ty
1 Like
Both the wiki and in-game say the top reload when aced is 7.5s, for both Type 61 and M-51.
Shell trajectory makes no difference, it’s a fraction of a degree which can’t compensate for the straight up better penetration on the 105mm.
1 Like
-
Aced crew is a nuanced argument as most folks aren’t putting that much time or GE into acing crew for any of the mentioned vehicles.
-
It’s more than a fraction of a degree, and less than 100mm of extra pen is negated in an uptier where it’s facing armor that the HEATFS has an easier time more getting reliable penetrations because of better shell trajectory.
Honestly I’d be fine with moving it up if it was reclassed as a TD and not a medium tank. Like the M36B1. I think it should’ve been a TD from the start honestly, as that designation is closer to it’s actual role by the time it came into service (the mid-1950s), as by then Israel already had Centurions for the medium tank role. It would also somewhat discourage people from using it as a “tank” tank, which it is horribly unsuited for
Meanwhile, does anyone remember is M26?
Even down to the same turret rotation speed.
How do you figure that an 800m/s velocity round is somehow gonna impact tanks in a way that it loses half of its pen, but a 1200m/s shell that can’t come down onto angled armor to get a better impact angle, with lower penetration to start with, is somehow better?
The M-51 is simply better in the gun department.
edit: I know I’ve SEEN people do the math here on the forum, and even for bigger differences in trajectory and speed it’s rarely more than 1 degree of difference on the impact angle. And 800m/s is already pretty good.
1 Like
Redesignation is fine and all, but moving it up just puts it closer to tanks that have stabilizers, LRFs and armor with chemical protection depending on how much you uptier it.
It legitimately is fine exactly where it sits BR-wise right now. It does not need to move up nor down.
-
The WT wiki has had a history of having incorrect information and I’m not home to actually check firsthand in-game, so I’ll take the stats with a touch of salt for now, and even if that is entirely accurate the Type 61’s better hull traversal mobility assists with getting the gun on target faster than the M-51.
-
You mean the HEAT that can bounce off those same angled armor that it’s supposed to be useful against? I’ve had far better results using HEATFS on angled armor with it’s trajectory in comparison to standard HEAT regardless of vehicle.
You can cite the math as much as it may suit you, but as we all know when it comes to WT those hard numbers are either inaccurate (Thanks Gaijin, very cool) or altogether useless in the face of be it spaghetti code or Gaijin’s shenanigans (Again thanks Gaijin, very cool.) So the hard numbers are tenuous at best.
As I said before, I checked both the wiki AND in-game.
I rarely have to use hull traverse because the Type 61 turret (and by extension the M-51’s since they have the same turret traverse) is very responsive.
The 105mm HEAT has almost identical ricochet angles, better penetration, and more TNTe.
Protection analysis agrees with me as well. Alas, I don’t have an M-51 to test in a custom match.
What’s most interesting is that in this entire exchange, NOT ONCE have you actually provided proof to back up your claims.
You’ve claimed the 90mm HEAT-FS has better penetration (wrong), you’ve claimed HEAT somehow doesn’t reach anywhere near its statcard penetration with no evidence, or that it’s higher trajectory somehow makes its impact angle worse, you’ve claimed the Type 61 has a better reload (wrong), and now that all the statcards and numbers are wrong.
If you’re not gonna provide evidence to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS (crazy thought I know), then I don’t see a reason to continue this when your counterarguments can be summed up by “nuh uh”.
2 Likes
I take hard numbers with a spoon of salt for a reason. That reason being Gaijin’s renowned incompetence when it comes to consistency where hard numbers and actual vehicle/armament behaviors are not reflected on the 1:1 scale.
As for my " nuh-uh " argument - My basis comes from experience of playing and spading the entire ST-A series, the Type 61 and the M-51. You’ve made it clear you don’t have an M-51 to test, which tells that you have yet to even play it. Therefore you lack actual in-game experience using the vehicle and so you have to refer to the data set as it’s presented.
We could basically argue in circles but that’s simply a waste of time because you will never, ever convince me that the M-51 is superior or even on-par to the ST series and Type 61. So as far as I am concerned this discussion is over.
so you argue simply out of gut, like in every other topic too. say it out loud: you dont care about facts.
btt.:
I agree btw. Type 61 is horrible at THIS br and its much harder to get the gun on target with it, as with the israeli sherman.