I want to bring this back up again since the official BR change is over when my thread was closed. Would like to see people’s opinions because I believe these two tanks’ manoeuvrability basically disables their use as ‘light tanks’ as they are labelled.
As their ‘light tank’ labels suggests, are some of the sloppiest tanks in its entire BR range. The turret traverse speeds are aligned with ZTZ-59, with slow reverse speeds and pretty low depression. In fact I would even suggest that comparing them to light tanks of similar BR such as hellcats and bulldogs would be unfair since they only share the lightly armoured part, and not the manoeuvrability. The more fair comparison can be made to say the M36B2 which sits at 5.7, with a HEAT round also boasting 300 pen. It obviously has worse speed, but the turret traverse and depression more than makes up for it to make this a viably comparable scenario, when in game type-62 sits at 6.7, with almost comparable armour and slightly better manoeuvrability. I again want to draw doubt to whether that is worth a 1.0 BR increase.
Type 63 also has its non-HEAT version, Obj.211 at 5.0, which is of course the same question, whether a HEAT round that is worth just 0.4 for M36, worth 1.3 for type 6.3, especially given the two vehicles are identical otherwise.
I would appreciate some discussion in this thread but please keep it civil.
Is been some time since last time I played china 6.7 but I will give my opinion based on what I remember(later I can play a couple of matches), for the type 63 if I recall correctly has actually a very good acceleration for what it is, I remember leaving behind most of my team and having to stop to wait for them, while the turret speed is bad(but could be worse) I recall relying on moving the entire vehicle since is good at turning, the ammo is good for what you will encounter at that br but having no armor was tough, as for the type 62 is one of the few light tanks that can survive getting 50 cal. From the front which is actually very good around that br specially when you disable the gun on US tanks, I also recall relying on the same thing of moving the entire tank to compensate for the turret rotation, though unlike Type 63, Type 62 can receive upgrades like apfsds or lsrf which would probably increase br too
I honestly feel like they are both fine. The only thing holding the Type 62 back is the lack of a lineup to go with it. The issue I have is they are both at an immersion breaking WW2 era BR. I would rather give them buffs and increase their BR.
The Type 63 even has a faster reload than the Type 62 and ZTS-63 which is annoying. I would give the Type 62 and ZTS-63 the same faster reload.
The Type 62 can use the same APFSDS the ZTS-63 has.
The Type 63 can mount an MG like the ZTS-63
Add more maps where the amphibious capabilities of the Type 63 actually matter
It is a 185mm APHE to 300 HEAT-FS vs what is 160mm APHE to 300 HEAT-FS.
And a 300mm APDS.
I’ve had good experience with front on encounters but then that sort of defeats the entire point of it being a light tank right? It is next to unusable for flanks or snipes which are what light tanks are normally good at. Stab is also probably useful for shooting on the move but well. I think a slight reload buff could do wonders.
I’ve had bad experience in both terrain and urban maps, to a point when I don’t know where these are best suited. The only time I find it remotely useful is if I want to hop in CAS immediately and a cap point from this relatively fast tank is nice.
It has identical [if not almost identical] pen at 60 degrees and gets higher the less steep the angle.
Outside T-54s, IS-3, and T-44 hulls, it’s a rather useful round, and even then those armor plates will bounce APCBC as well.
It was the difference between me winning a 1v1 against an IS-4M or having to retreat and wait for a superior tank on my team to deal with the heavy.
Knowing how to use superior penning ammunition is more important to me than relying on the post-pen of ammo that can’t pen targets I want to be able to deal with.
APCR is the main best munition for 90mm guns until HEATFS which is 5.7 for TD and 7.0 for MBT.
90mm APCR is 5.3 - 6.7.
Yes, there are many people that prefer APCBC for 90mm guns, but they haven’t been balanced on APCBC in over half a decade.
Maus, Tiger 2s, IS-4, Jagdtiger, Elefant, Ho Ri Production, M4 Jumbo, T26E5, IS-6 [its turret becomes a bit easier to pen], T34/30/29 heavies, Jagdpanther [penned that one with APCR yesterday] are just the ones off the top of my head, it is not just limited to those.
Honorable mentions: Porsche Tiger’s hull front, Panther hull…
The moment I stopped relying on post-pen in early 2019 and started going for weak spots of tanks as a whole, not just armor, I’ve witnessed more ammo racks than I can count doing shots that 90mm APCBC couldn’t do.
ABCPC is good, it’s a bit better than PzGr from the long 75.
It’s not how vehicles with 90mm APCR are balanced though.
Ngl, the 211 should go up in br. I have maining that for the last week and its crazy being able to zoom around and hardly have to worry about aiming with an APHE round.
True but I feel like the it’s more like a lightly armoured tank destroyer, fast sure but can’t flank at all. Downtier wise u are basically OP and uptier wise u are sort of mid-bad, so it should prob be 5.3 but to me that doesn’t matter since CN only has 5.3 lineup anyway (discounting the PT-76 which technically doesn’t exist).
I mean u can flank but to me (feel like I got spoiled by the 99A) that these tanks that have bad turret traverse really sucks in flanks, especially cause in terrain the depression and the boat sized body sucks in any urban map. I do like the gun though, previously when it got the 12x scope it used to be sooooo nice to snipe.
I mean IDK but never used it. Feel like he doesn’t quite know what he’s talking about saying it makes the tank ‘better’ against IS3.
I tend to flank more aggressively and can’t be bothered to sit and wait. Partially cause I play arcade a load more than realistic where sitting there gets me killed most of the time.