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”.
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.
