15 replies to this topic

[KarateF22]

So, I am sure most people here have noticed that the T-62A is more flammable than your average tank. I did some research and found that the T-62A has a vertical strip on the upper and lower glacis where the fuel tanks are located. Basically, anything on the same latitude as the headlights on the upper glacis is a fuel tank, and striking that latitude will damage your fuel tank. To those who don't know, fuel tanks make your tank catch on fire automatically if their hitpoints reach zero. From tests I have run, it appears that the fuel tanks may have 200 or less hitpoints, meaning a successful strike to the fuel tank from virtually any high tier gun will make your tank combust. It should also be noted that you catch on fire every single time your fuel tank hitpoints reach zero, meaning that someone can effectively fire spam you by hitting the vertical strip aligned with your headlights. Basically this amounts to a tank nearly as flammable as the old Tiger.

As an aside, heres the historical backup to the fuel tanks behind the headlights (go to page 1-6 and look up front internal fuel cells): http://www.scribd.co...perators-Manual

[Harkonen_siegetank]

Except the tiger dont have fuel tanks on the front. Unless you count transmission unit as fuel tank.

[Commander_Apollo]

I'm sorry to say but GET OVER IT!

[anubis132]

Can the 62A fit the CO2-filled fuel tanks equipment? That sounds like a solution to me.

[KarateF22]

anubis132, on Aug 07 2012 - 03:56, said:

Can the 62A fit the CO2-filled fuel tanks equipment? That sounds like a solution to me.

It can, but if the fuel tank's hit points is really only 200 as I suspect it makes little difference as most guns the T-62A see do over 300 damage.

[Mow_Mow]

KarateF22, on Aug 07 2012 - 03:59, said:

It can, but if the fuel tank's hit points is really only 200 as I suspect it makes little difference as most guns the T-62A see do over 300 damage.

Gun hit point damage and module damage are different figures.

[GoldMountain]

At least your not a mobile ammo rack.

[KarateF22]

Mow_Mow, on Aug 07 2012 - 04:08, said:

Gun hit point damage and module damage are different figures.

Well, all I can say is that a single hit from the 7.5 L/100 was enough to set it on fire.

[zephoid]

T62 is also a mobile ammo rack. rack gets damaged about every other round. Doesnt explode all that often, but still not rare.

[rednotdead]

65 battles and Ive yet to be burned up. I'm keeping the RSG.

[SassanidShockCavalry]

seriously t62a needs some rebalancing for the modul damage and tracks repair time....i mean it takes 4times more time to repair tracks than t54 with a crew with 100% repair skill also 1/5 frontal hits resoults in burning fuel tanks that just sucks for a tier 10 vehicle......only good thing is the gun

Edited by SassanidShockCavalry, Aug 07 2012 - 16:56.

[Huck_]

SassanidShockCavalry, on Aug 07 2012 - 16:56, said:

seriously t62a needs some rebalancing for the modul damage and tracks repair time....i mean it takes 4times more time to repair tracks than t54 with a crew with 100% repair skill also 1/5 frontal hits resoults in burning fuel tanks that just sucks for a tier 10 vehicle......only good thing is the gun

Did you actually test this, or are you just frustrated from playing the tank? Anecdotally, it certainly seems like the repair time is longer, but I haven't done any controlled testing. It may just be that the acceleration is so awful that we still feel tracked even after the repair is completed...

As for the fuel tanks, there is another thread going on the same topic. All I can say is that I haven't had an issue with it, so it may just be that a playstyle correction is needed. Or maybe I've just been lucky. IDK. I can tell you that I run gold fire extinguisher and avoid frontal shots, and combined it equates to not catching on fire. I also think the rack is considerably better than the rack on the T-54, and the rack on the T-62A is a million times better than the one on the T-44.

It's more tracking and turret damage than anything else, but all of us are talking about really small sample sizes thru 5 days of release. What I can tell you is that the tank is performing OK stat-wise on the US server, which is surprising considering how poorly it performed on the Russian server last week after release.

Edited by COLONEL64, Aug 07 2012 - 17:28.

[detangler]

I haven't done any formal testing, but I can definitely tell the tracks take much longer to repair then on my t54. At least 1-2 seconds longer it seems.

[zephoid]

22 secs to repair my turret with no repair crew. T54 was 11s. Tracks repair in 13s compared to 7.  So repair time almost doubled.

[Doppelgangerk]

as I already mentioned earlier.........soviet Ronson lighter .......... and just few cares.

[RolandVH]

zephoid, on Aug 08 2012 - 03:57, said:

22 secs to repair my turret with no repair crew. T54 was 11s. Tracks repair in 13s compared to 7.  So repair time almost doubled.

Russian Bias? Oh wait...