Facts!
We are trying to rally the troops now
You referring to me or to whom I was replying?
Laserdestroy said the T32 would be too strong at 6.7. I disagree. It may have thicker armor but it also has more frontal weak spots and inferior firepower. Other nations have M36s with HEATFS to counter the T32. It’s a slow medium, not a fast heavy. You have to play it patiently. The T32 sat at 7.0 for years and still people found it mediocre.
1 Like
Yes, I defend T32 against hate. So what?
Gonna insult Americans some more instead of stay on topic?
@MiseryIndex556
People also found IS-3 mediocre at 7.0 but that didn’t change good players from using it.
I found IS-3 as easy to die in as T32 with my limited playtime of both.
Their 7.7 options are far superior, which goes for Britain as well.
Yeah I agree man I feel this is an issue with most American tanks following 7.0 to 9.3 they are all overtiered in my opinion especially stuff like the m60’s
1 Like
T32 is not receiving hate. It’s BR is
IS-3 and T32 are fine at their BRs.
Especially when you have 7.0 heavies that are obviously inferior to both such as Tiger 2 105 and T29.
With Tiger 2 105 and T29 being superior to IS-2, T34, T26E5, Tiger 2H, etc.
I’d disagree there. Its maneuverability is similar, its armor is even less reliable with more shot traps, your reload is even worse, your profile is massive, and your only options for ammo are uncapped solid shot and HEAT-FS that likes to fuse on tree branches.
Oh, and Gaijin has done such a remarkably bad job even by their usual standards regarding how its optics are handled. Despite the whole setup being linked, the high-zoom stereoscopic rangefinder is only used by the commander, and he puts an eyepatch over his left eye whenever he does so rendering the entire exercise pointless since the commander’s PoV is from the right-side optic of it instead of centered over the middle of the tank or even boresighted as a rangefinder should be, and the gunner is forced to aim using his backup wide-view periscope.
But good luck trying to bug report it without a primary source or two secondary sources describing the exact function of its optical array despite the fact that optical rangefinders need two good eyes and the left side and right side eyepieces to be connected.
1 Like
It’s mostly opinion and I like vehicles which don’t have their camera hugging the vehicle. The M103 is very zoomed out.
I’ve also had good experiences with the vehicle compared to the rest.
I don’t really have an issue with the T32 being 7.3, mine is the T32E1 being 7.7. There’s no way the T32E1 should share a BR with the M103. The T32E1 should just share 7.3 with the T32.
But the T32E1 gets rid of the major weakpoints of the T32, making it nearly invulnerable against any WW2 tank.
Heck, even those pesky 155mm HE slinging SPGs have a bad time against the T32E1, since it increased the hull roof armor to 66mm.
That’s a huge armor and survivability upgrade.
1 Like
I tried the t32e1 after falling in love with the t32. It’s the cannon and shell combo that make it so bad at 7.7. It’s unbearable. There’s plenty of heat to deal with the t32e1 at 7.3.
I believe you said WW2 tanks at 7.3 & 7.7? They are nearly all post WW2 tanks. The IS versions post IS2 didn’t even make it to combat and were complete shat in real life. The only usable version I believe was the t10 which was the 50’s(Cold War)
If the T32E1 was lowered to 7.3 it would see a lot of WW2 vehicles in downtiers which don’t stand a chance against it. From the front it has nearly more armor than Maus, particular the turret. Of course it’s a lot easier to kill from the side but it’s also way more mobile than a Maus, with good turret traverse speed to target tanks quickly.
The main imbalancing factor for post-war vehicle is still that APHE is just way too strong in killing tanks. Reducing the killing power of APHE to some realistic level while making it easier to destroy tanks, like by taking out their breech, would allow for more historical accurate and also more balanced match ups of vehicles.
In a lot of cases the imbalance wouldn’t exist if APCR was just as effective in taking out tanks as APHE but in WT switching to APCR to merely damage another vehicle is often just not good enough.
1 Like
Yes they do stand a chance against it. The majority of the American tanks below 6.0 do not stand a chance against German and Russian armor. 91mm of pen 😂
It’s okay if at 7.3 we have a hard to pen tank. Get to the side or shoot the barrel as I’ve had to do a million times in my Sherman’s.
Yeah almost like a Sherman with a stabilized gun is especially capable of shooting gun barrels at close ranges.
Also what’s that non-sense about the majority of US tanks below 6.0 not being able to take out German or Russian tanks?
The US tanks have a stabilized 76mm starting at 5.0 with the 90mm joining them at 5.3.
Only the 76mm can struggle to penetrate some vehicles from the front, which is off-set by a high RoF and being stabilzed.
A T32E1 that can not be penetrated by any medium or heavy tank below 7.3 is not comparable to some German and Soviet vehicles that can be penetrated by at least 50% of the vehicles they face at lower BRs.
1 Like
It can be penetrated by multiple tanks and tank destroyers.
Germany has the M41 and JPz4-5.
Russia has the ASU-85.
Britain has the Charioteer and FV4005.
Japan has the ST-A1 and M36.
China has the Type 62 and Type 63.
Italy has the M36 and the Fiat 6614.
France has the M36.
Sweden has the Charioteer.
Israel has the M51.
Every nation has at least 1 vehicle in the 6.X range that can frontally kill a T32E1.
And this was just a quick run through of the trees. There are others that I didn’t list.
3 Likes
“Penetrate”
A 5.7 open top M36 is not going to have a lot of impact in a 7.3/7.7 match.
These vehicles have high penetration but are low in BR because they are not very effective.
So using bad vehicles that can penetrate the armor of some heavily armored vehicle while the more effective vehicles can’t, is not an argument for anything.
That’s an argument that people used 8 years ago to discuss the performance of heavy WW2 armor.
In general it doesn’t matter when the enemy team can potentially have vehicles on their team that can penetrate your own, because just because they have it doesn’t mean you’ll meet them.
It’s not about penetrating or not penetrating armor, that’s child level of discussion, it’s about a vehicles efficency and always has been.
If you nerf the T95s reload to a full minute you can put that thing at 3.0 and I wouldn’t care.
An invincible turtle that gets disabled all the time can hardly influence the battle.
1 Like
You claimed the T32E1 could not be penetrated by any medium or heavy tank below 7.3. I was simply listing vehicles in every tree in game below 7.3 that could do it.
If 7.3 means the 5.7 M36s cannot be effective against it, then lower it to 6.7 so they can.
I said below 6.0. Referring to 5.7 & below. I believe the m36 is the best we got at 5.7(highest pen), and it has no armor. The t32e1 would work fine at 7.3.