Jump to content


Revert the Type 62's model

type 62 type 62 historical

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

The_Chieftain #21 Posted May 21 2013 - 00:04

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9513 battles
  • 9,394
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Hmm. Let me see what's going on.

MisterPatriot #22 Posted May 21 2013 - 05:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 17206 battles
  • 6,661
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 00:04, said:

Hmm. Let me see what's going on.
Thanks so much.


I rarely get any recognition for these historically inaccurate in-game discrepancy posts...

jacg123 #23 Posted May 21 2013 - 07:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 41074 battles
  • 1,803
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
If it gets changed back I'll be so happy.

Even better... could you imagine a tier 8 prem light tank? (if they went all out and made it basically a 132 in prem form)

I would die of happy.

CrabEatOff #24 Posted May 21 2013 - 15:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 34343 battles
  • 4,756
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 00:04, said:

Hmm. Let me see what's going on.

Hooray!

gundam2010 #25 Posted May 21 2013 - 16:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11470 battles
  • 472
  • [CCAB] CCAB
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
Type 62 is no fantasy tank and is being used by many nations even today, wondering how did they get the modeling wrong... It was correct at the 1st time especially, what made WG changed it to the wrong fattier model?

Anyways, +1 to OP

Shadows_Unrest #26 Posted May 21 2013 - 16:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 8575 battles
  • 270
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012
I support this thread.

And btw thanks for bringing this up, never noticed this before +1 to OP

Edited by CrimsonBird, May 21 2013 - 16:46.


CrabEatOff #27 Posted May 21 2013 - 16:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 34343 battles
  • 4,756
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
Oh, and since we're looking at the historical aspects, can we get to work on this?

Quote

The HEAT projectile can penetrate 495 mm of armour at 1,000 m while the APFSDF-T projectile can penetrate 360 mm of armour at 1,000 m.


TalonV #28 Posted May 21 2013 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 29440 battles
  • 25,238
  • [SPCTR] SPCTR
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011
My nice sleek and narrow type 62 back? PLEASE!!!! I do not like my squat fat type 62. I want my nice sleek type 62 I first bought at tier 6!

1SLUGGO1 #29 Posted May 21 2013 - 18:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 23802 battles
  • 10,021
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostCrabEatOff, on May 21 2013 - 16:47, said:

Oh, and since we're looking at the historical aspects, can we get to work on this?

Oh, sure, and might as well make the M103 have 330mm penetration with standard AP like it did IRL.

Hurk #30 Posted May 21 2013 - 18:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 43518 battles
  • 13,061
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Post1SLUGGO1, on May 21 2013 - 18:01, said:

Oh, sure, and might as well make the M103 have 330mm penetration with standard AP like it did IRL.
a model being wrong is a far cry from balance altering effects. sometimes things were changed for a reason.

CrabEatOff #31 Posted May 21 2013 - 18:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 34343 battles
  • 4,756
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

View Post1SLUGGO1, on May 21 2013 - 18:01, said:

Oh, sure, and might as well make the M103 have 330mm penetration with standard AP like it did IRL.

I know I was joking, and given that the real values exceed even the highest HEAT round in game, I supposed everyone else knew as well...

TalonV #32 Posted May 21 2013 - 18:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 29440 battles
  • 25,238
  • [SPCTR] SPCTR
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 00:04, said:

Hmm. Let me see what's going on.

HUZZAH!!!

1SLUGGO1 #33 Posted May 21 2013 - 18:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 23802 battles
  • 10,021
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostCrabEatOff, on May 21 2013 - 18:06, said:

I know I was joking, and given that the real values exceed even the highest HEAT round in game, I supposed everyone else knew as well...

Me too, in a sarcastic kinda way.

Megamatt_X #34 Posted May 21 2013 - 21:58

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4232 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    10-14-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 00:04, said:

Hmm. Let me see what's going on.
Ahhh, The Chieftain.

He gets **** done.

The_Chieftain #35 Posted May 21 2013 - 22:51

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9513 battles
  • 9,394
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
OK. After a little relaying through Minsk to China (Apparently we have a Chinese version of me, who knew?) this is what I got back.

Quote

Type 62 = WZ-131, not WZ-132

WZ-131 / Type 62, WZ-131-1 and WZ-131-2 is a modification of a tank that had a factory index 132B. Vehicles pass the army test under index WZ-131, -1, -2, and were accepted for service but only the first modification mass produced and went to the army, designated the Type 62.

Dimensions (length with gun x height x width):
Type 62 8950x2327x3244 (85 mm)
Type 62 model 2 10080x2327x3244 (100 mm)
WZ 131-1 8070x2270x2820 (85 mm)
WZ 131-2 9450x2270x2820 (100 mm)
WZ 131-2 model 2 9450x2270x2820 (100 mm)
WZ 132 8340x2270x2820 (85 mm)
WZ 132 model 2 8340x2270x2820 (85 mm)
WZ 132 model 3 8880x2270x2820 (100 mm)

As you can see, width for Type 62 is 3244 mm, for others - 2820 mm. Therefore the model of Type 62 was replaced by WZ-131 model.


jacg123 #36 Posted May 21 2013 - 23:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 41074 battles
  • 1,803
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 22:51, said:

OK. After a little relaying through Minsk to China (Apparently we have a Chinese version of me, who knew?) this is what I got back.
Doesn't that mean that the 131 is oversized in game if it is the same size as the type 62? Based off the data you the other you provided, anyway.

Edited by jacg123, May 21 2013 - 23:18.


Tedster_ #37 Posted May 21 2013 - 23:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 38638 battles
  • 4,328
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
Interesting...

21Blackjack #38 Posted May 22 2013 - 00:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18113 battles
  • 1,649
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012
So it turns out its not the Type 62 thats wrong but the WZ-131? kay...

MisterPatriot #39 Posted May 22 2013 - 02:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 17206 battles
  • 6,661
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 21 2013 - 22:51, said:

OK. After a little relaying through Minsk to China (Apparently we have a Chinese version of me, who knew?) this is what I got back.
But why is it that the pictures of the Type 62 in real life are very different than the Type 62 in-game?

The real Type 62's turret is wider/overlapping the hull, but the one in-game isn't at all.

virus_SHAME #40 Posted May 22 2013 - 02:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 7900 battles
  • 4,315
  • [GSKYO] GSKYO
  • Member since:
    05-01-2012
I feel incredistupid that I never noticed my Type 62's body change.





Also tagged with type 62, type, 62, historical

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users