Jump to content


T32 is Crap

Its ageed after 200 battles

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
164 replies to this topic

Lucyfur #41 Posted Dec 21 2012 - 05:43

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 27034 battles
  • 677
  • [TKO] TKO
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011
T32 rewards map knowledge and good tanking skills.  It punishes ham fisted noob play and lack of terrain awareness.

KilljoyCutter #42 Posted Dec 21 2012 - 06:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,685
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
OP:  "It's not the tank I want it to be, so it must suck".

thrawnn #43 Posted Dec 21 2012 - 23:42

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 13988 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
I too found the 105mm quite lackluster. Actually or rather ironically i went back to the 90mm instead and found more effectiveness there. Which brings me to another point one that I actually brought up some time back.

Why doesnt the T32 have the pershings 90mm instead?  Or better yet why not have a better 90mm with the cheaper ammo as an alternative to the 105mm. I tend to prefer the higher ROF + ACC over pure alpha, much the same as in the AMX AC MLE 46'.

Granted the 90mm isnt quite as effective alpha wise but since its more accurate you can make it work better in certain situations and if ur hull down some distance away I would opt for the 90mm ACC and if pen is a serious issue just buy 10-20 rounds of gold (or rather silver) rounds just as a failsafe.

Thats just my 2 cents on that whole bad gun piece.

Edited by thrawnn, Dec 21 2012 - 23:43.


Ihr_Tank_ist_kaputt #44 Posted Dec 22 2012 - 00:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16243 battles
  • 436
  • Member since:
    03-31-2011

View PostMadox76, on Dec 20 2012 - 23:52, said:

After T29 it was a real let down to me.  Once elited and crew was trained up I did much better on it but gladly sold for my M103.  Mean time also got T34 which is just incredible for tier 8, it covers any desire I ever have to get the T32 again.

The T32 is better than the T34 in every way except for the gun. If you succeed in the T34 you should excel in the T32.

bigeye123 #45 Posted Dec 24 2012 - 12:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2004 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    08-03-2010
Oddly enough it has one of the highest average exp among all my tanks. Around 850 or so I think. Its actually a pretty good tank. Decent hull armor and an invincible turret. Just aim at weakspots and keep a few premium rounds just in case.

Genzing #46 Posted Dec 24 2012 - 12:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23431 battles
  • 648
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
Stop whining, I got my T32 stock, grinded the tracks and turret in LESS than 50 battles it wasn't that hard really, and right now after having the T32 for only a about a month, I'm on my way onto the M103 besides it's not the tank that sucks, it's the player, any tank will dominate and do good on the battlefield when played right, the thing with US heavy's is that, out of a underpowered tank comes an awesome tank.

big_boo_baddy #47 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 00:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13448 battles
  • 443
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

View Postcmdrnarrain, on Oct 15 2012 - 20:00, said:

After close to 200 battles with the T32 I can honestly say it is total and complete crap.  Below are points of reference for the unbelievers,

1.    Accuracy – the top tie cannon has louse accuracy. You are forced to aim for the center mass of every tank in order to have a chance to hit at anything other than point blank.   You cannot aim at weak spots because you will not hit it.

2.    Penetration – the gun is incapable of penetrating other Tier 8 heavies from the front and it will have a hard time penning the side Tier 9-10 heavies.   It will be very common to bounce every other shot, assuming you hit.  You will lose a lot of silver because your shots are 1k a piece.

3.    Hull Armor – cannot be depended on.  Most tier 6 and above tanks can pen your hull from the front.  The only tank which can’t is another T32.   It is not uncommon to be one shot from Tier 6 and above arty.  

4.    Turret Armor – is no longer shot proof.  Count on losing the gun to every other shot to the turret.

5.    Tracks – count on losing them a lot.  They also take a long time fix even with 100% repair.

6.    Slow Speed – the tank is slow.  Arty loves slow targets.

The forums want you to believe that hull down and face hugging are the ways to go with this tank.  Those statements are complete and total nonsense.  Trying to perform either of them will result in your speedy death.   Case in point, hull down – sitting still in this tank will get you killed by arty.  No arty, hull down is still a bad option because you will not be able to pen them either.  Sooner a later you will lose the gun and they will drive down your throat.   Face-hugging, is not a completely terrible idea.  You will find it is not a instance win as some have claimed but it will allow you to do more damage than you receive in some cases.   Generally, only face hug alone lower tier tanks.  It should not be used as a general tactic, remember you are slow and are easy to pen. and track which means you will never make it.

Tactics that work with the tank.  Always find a bigger meaner buddy and tag team the enemy.  Never go it alone.  You are required to use teamwork to an extreme with this tank.  Try to finish off cripples to prevent that extra shot to your buddy.  Your gun will work on Meds for the most part, use it to keep your buddies flank clear.  Always, flank.   If you are trading shots from the front, back-up and find a different angle but keep in support range of your buddy.

It took me 200 battles to earn enough exp. to get to the next level without using free exp. and without a premium acct for most it.   Two hundred god awful, wasteful battles which were zero fun.  I wish you all better luck.  

Just no, T32 was and still is my favourite Tier 8 Heavy. Gun is fine, same damage as the King Tiger 105mmL62. It does lack 36mm of pen compared to the L62 but it fires quicker and unlike the King Tiger doesn't catch fire when it gets shot in the face.

Acewolf1 #48 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 00:40

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 16036 battles
  • 1,528
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010
When I played the T32, it was near release. It had an invulnerable turret and maps had more place for hulldown, physic didn't slow, etc.The 105mm was always lackluster, but at least it had enough pen to hit weakspots frontally.

Currently, it's not the case anymore. The turret been remade and they added cheek weakspots, the commander cupola is no more invulnerable. They removed lot's of rocks, reduced place where complete hulldown is possible and terrain resistance feel more like the T34 than the Pershing. Finally, they nerfed the armor penetration normalisation witch made the 105mm job way harder.

I always read comments were people say the T32 was good when they played, but alot did play it when it was released, not now. Currently, I find today that the Tiger 2 turret has more armor than the T32, and that is sad.

The T32 is currently a bad platform tank, but any good players can have good score with it, as the tank is only a part of the player skills, but that does not make a tank good.

Gasboy #49 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 02:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13258 battles
  • 894
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostAcewolf1, on Dec 26 2012 - 00:40, said:

When I played the T32, it was near release. It had an invulnerable turret and maps had more place for hulldown, physic didn't slow, etc.The 105mm was always lackluster, but at least it had enough pen to hit weakspots frontally.

Currently, it's not the case anymore. The turret been remade and they added cheek weakspots, the commander cupola is no more invulnerable. They removed lot's of rocks, reduced place where complete hulldown is possible and terrain resistance feel more like the T34 than the Pershing. Finally, they nerfed the armor penetration normalisation witch made the 105mm job way harder.

I always read comments were people say the T32 was good when they played, but alot did play it when it was released, not now. Currently, I find today that the Tiger 2 turret has more armor than the T32, and that is sad.

The T32 is currently a bad platform tank, but any good players can have good score with it, as the tank is only a part of the player skills, but that does not make a tank good.

The T32 has 60% more armor on the front of the turret and 2x more armor on the sides and rear of the turret compared to the Tiger II.

I've not experienced any of this flattening, there's a heck of a lot more places to hull down now than there ever were.  Take a look at Ruinberg's streets, not a straight line on them any more.  The bomb craters are really craters now, all you can see of the T32 is the turret, the rest of the tank is entirely protected.  Prokhorovka has more spots now as well.  All of the newly revised maps have better places to hull down now, despite old "favourite" spots disappearing.

Acewolf1 #50 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 04:15

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 16036 battles
  • 1,528
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

View PostGasboy, on Dec 26 2012 - 02:59, said:

The T32 has 60% more armor on the front of the turret and 2x more armor on the sides and rear of the turret compared to the Tiger II.

I've not experienced any of this flattening, there's a heck of a lot more places to hull down now than there ever were.  Take a look at Ruinberg's streets, not a straight line on them any more.  The bomb craters are really craters now, all you can see of the T32 is the turret, the rest of the tank is entirely protected.  Prokhorovka has more spots now as well.  All of the newly revised maps have better places to hull down now, despite old "favourite" spots disappearing.
The T32 stated armor correspond to the mantlet only, the left and rigth cheek don't have that armor.
When I say there is less spot to do hull down, i am saying that there less spot to do complete hulldown, and even then, your turret has enough vulnerable spot that the only gimmick the tank have, invulnerable turret, can be easily neutralised by sniping the commander hatch or the cheeks of the tank.

But clearly, I am an idiot.

Edited by Acewolf1, Dec 26 2012 - 04:15.


Gasboy #51 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 04:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13258 battles
  • 894
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostAcewolf1, on Dec 26 2012 - 04:15, said:

The T32 stated armor correspond to the mantlet only, the left and rigth cheek don't have that armor.
When I say there is less spot to do hull down, i am saying that there less spot to do complete hulldown, and even then, your turret has enough vulnerable spot that the only gimmick the tank have, invulnerable turret, can be easily neutralised by sniping the commander hatch or the cheeks of the tank.

But clearly, I am an idiot.

There are still plenty of spots to go hull down, and you're giving the vast majority of WoT players credit by expecting them to know to snip the hatch or cheeks. :P  The Tiger II, which you compared the T32 to, has the frontal transmission weakspot, the commander's hatch (which you can reach unless you're close up), the driver's viewport and so on.

And the T32 has a lower profile than many other heavies, it can still hull down in many places on maps.

And I wasn't calling you an idiot by disagreeing with what you yourself said was a "feel"ing.

Luffwaffle #52 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 04:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6863 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
My experience with the T32 is that if you suck at tanks it will be the worst of em all. If you are good at tanks you will love the T32. That's my opinion from playing it and hearing from people who use it.

Acewolf1 #53 Posted Dec 26 2012 - 06:05

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 16036 battles
  • 1,528
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

View PostGasboy, on Dec 26 2012 - 04:39, said:

There are still plenty of spots to go hull down, and you're giving the vast majority of WoT players credit by expecting them to know to snip the hatch or cheeks. :P  The Tiger II, which you compared the T32 to, has the frontal transmission weakspot, the commander's hatch (which you can reach unless you're close up), the driver's viewport and so on.

And the T32 has a lower profile than many other heavies, it can still hull down in many places on maps.

And I wasn't calling you an idiot by disagreeing with what you yourself said was a "feel"ing.
Bad day, sorry. Funnily, I can do better hulldown with the tiger 2, and well I found it generally a better overall tank (I never had troubles with the transmission weakspot as I always hidded it). It's just that I am sad of the state of the T32 tank now as I have been spoiled of it's earliest glorious before. Yes, I did solo tier 9 and 10 with it by facehugging other tanks, can't do that anymore.

Edited by Acewolf1, Dec 26 2012 - 06:06.


kgfxs77 #54 Posted Jan 01 2013 - 03:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 38814 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    02-18-2012
I have only 77 battles in my T32 and i have to say I'm disappointed. It has the lowest win rate of all my tanks but, that is possibly due to the holiday situation that some of you have pointed out in other posts. The tank itself is expensive to run and makes little silver unless I have an exceptional game. Tracks and gun are the worst areas although the same gun is fantastic on my T29. Mmmm?
What I believe is at the core of the complaints is that as a Tier 8 it now competes against a higher percentage of higher tiers. Whereas the T29 never saw a Tier 10 and maybe a couple of Tier 9's, the T32 sees around 5 Tier 9 and 10's. In short...you're in the BIG leagues now. I naively thought that the higher tiers would make play easier but that was 1000's of games ago, I've know better for some time. I'll stick it out because as I and my crew get more experienced, the good times will come. Meanwhile I still have an M6 and T29 to grind credits and kick a** with.
gl and hf

JohannRSA #55 Posted Jan 05 2013 - 23:14

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3566 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
I have a 58% win rate with mine. I only play pub matches. I am not using gold rounds. The T32 is not a very forgiving tank, you have to minimize the mistakes you make and exploit your enemy's mistakes. I love it when people underestimate the tank and I make them pay for it.

This tank is not a sniper it works better at close to mid range. I have picked-up on a quirk with the 105mm gun, if you count 2 seconds after the gun is stable it fires more accurately. This helps when you have time to take the shot.

RobertFKennedy #56 Posted Jan 05 2013 - 23:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29431 battles
  • 1,617
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
I think just by using logic you can come to the conclusion that the T32 is not a good tank.

I'm not prepared to say it sucks, but when you have a tank that has basically the exact same gun as the same class of tank a tier underneath it, that tells you the gun sucks and hence the tank is not a good one.

In my opinion, the T29 is a great tank, and T32 kind of sucks.  Same with KV-1S is a great tank and the IS seems to suck a bit.  The IS also has a gun that appears to only have a slightly better ROF than the KV-1S' 122.

Look at the T25/2.  It's gun only has 10mm more pen (I believe) than its predecessor the M18 and it's a horrible tank.

Any time you see that formula, you know you got a bad tank.

Edited by Robert_F_Kennedy, Jan 05 2013 - 23:34.


ComradeHX #57 Posted Jan 05 2013 - 23:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 13810 battles
  • 5,791
  • Member since:
    12-02-2011

View PostRobert_F_Kennedy, on Jan 05 2013 - 23:32, said:

I think just by using logic you can come to the conclusion that the T32 is not a good tank.
I'm not prepared to say it sucks, but when you have a tank that has basically the exact same gun as the same class of tank a tier underneath it, that tells you the gun sucks and hence the tank is not a good one.
In my opinion, the T29 is a great tank, and T32 kind of sucks.  Same with KV-1S is a great tank and the IS seems to suck a bit.  The IS also has a gun that appears to only have a slightly better ROF than the KV-1S' 122.
Look at the T25/2.  It's gun only has 10mm more pen (I believe) than its predecessor the M18 and it's a horrible tank.
Any time you see that formula, you know you got a bad tank.


IS is much better than KV-1S because IS can actually go toe-to-toe against anything at-tier due to dpm.

T32 dpm is not bad, and 198mm pen is workable(if I can pen weakspot of Tiger II and IS-3 from front with KV-5, anyone can do it with T32's more accurate and higher pen gun).
It can go hulldown and force opponents to move around(or fail to pen T32 turret and get shot anyway).  Only thing keeping a properly-used T32 from being OP is map(not always going to have place to go hulldown) and artillery(hulldown too long and receiver -800 at least to hp).

Edited by ComradeHX, Jan 05 2013 - 23:42.


RobertFKennedy #58 Posted Jan 05 2013 - 23:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29431 battles
  • 1,617
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostComradeHX, on Jan 05 2013 - 23:41, said:

IS is much better than KV-1S because IS can actually go toe-to-toe against anything at-tier due to dpm.

This makes bad sense.  It's like you didn't take into account that the IS is going to fight higher tier opponents than KV-1S.  You can't do higher DPM if you can't pen your opponent.

View PostComradeHX, on Jan 05 2013 - 23:41, said:

T32 dpm is not bad, and 198mm pen is workable(if I can pen weakspot of Tiger II and IS-3 from front with KV-5, anyone can do it with T32's more accurate and higher pen gun).

Same as above, DPM is worthless if you can't pen the target.  If you know the weakspot of the Tiger II, don't you think it does too and won't let it's lower plate be exposed?  To say that the T32's "more accurate" gun also sounds wrong.  Isn't the Tiger II's gun more accurate?

View PostComradeHX, on Jan 05 2013 - 23:41, said:

It can go hulldown and force opponents to move around(or fail to pen T32 turret and get shot anyway).  Only thing keeping a properly-used T32 from being OP is map(not always going to have place to go hulldown) and artillery(hulldown too long and receiver -800 at least to hp).

Go hull down and what, sit there?  Games are not won by sticking up a massive block of steal above a hill and sitting there waiting for others to come around the hill and hopefully be slaughtered.

Edited by Robert_F_Kennedy, Jan 05 2013 - 23:49.


nismos14270r #59 Posted Jan 05 2013 - 23:54

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 2623 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010
The T32 is completely useless.

Whats the point of knowing an enemies weak point if the horrible cone of fire makes it a random chance as to whether or not I damage an enemy? The terrible accuracy removes any bit of skill I may have over an enemy play. Especially when in stock form, the entire tank is a weak spot. Then when its upgraded someone has to be dumb enough to shoot your mantlet.

Yes know how to go hull down, it works great on the t29 and t34, but they actually have guns appropriate for their tier. The T32 just sits in a hole tickling enemies.

RobertFKennedy #60 Posted Jan 06 2013 - 01:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29431 battles
  • 1,617
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
Just had a T32 battle. Took 31 hits before they finally got me due to me being completely swamped and flanked by enemies.

Edited by Robert_F_Kennedy, Jan 06 2013 - 01:20.






Also tagged with Its, ageed, after, 200, battles

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users